1 full prof at Vanderbilt with a real research program who has been listed as PI on a bunch of grants. "Top researcher" may be generous, but based on nothing I'd say reasonable description.
The other 3: 1 is a VU Amsterdam PhD who was on a Netherlands Government funded 24-month postdoc in Harvard who's been at VU Amsterdam since 2017. 1 is an adjunct (on leave) prof from Israel who has worked at a few german universities, most recently an Munster (doesn't qualify for the 30% rule). The last resigned over a year ago and has been contracting at a couple UK universities.
This seems less like "Top researchers leave USA" and more like "Typical Academic Bag Chasing"
They haven't published the full list of the 34 researchers accepted so far:
> Namen van de 34 bursalen maakt NWO niet bekend, aldus een woordvoerder, omdat de aanstellingsprocedures nog lopen en sommige onderzoekers geen publiciteit willen.
I know this is anecdotal, but my engineering graduate program at a well known private university in the NE had roughly 300 graduates, more than half of them on student visas. I feel it's more popular than ever to act as though one has ideals, but there is an endless supply of talent waiting for a spot at these prestigious American universities.
Researchers _would_ leave in droves if they could. But it turns out the entire world doesn't actually care much for research. The US was actually unique in that regard.
That’s not true and uninformed. What even makes you believe this?
Europe has tons of top research universities. Both EU and China are competing with the US [0].
And this news is not an isolated event. The majority of Americans rank US higher education research and innovation as: poor [1]. US top universities are shrinking PhD programs [2.
The thing that makes the US unique is that they are really dropping the ball in a lot of areas, because of bad leadership of the financial and political “elite”.
Great initiative, and good to see that it has an effect. I'm a bit sceptical about the available funds. 1 million over 5 years is a nice starting package (4+ PhD students), but the availability of overall research grant money in the Netherlands has been under pressure for years and is difficult to acquire. Researchers moving here may find it difficult to acquire further grant money compared to US, at least in CS.
Any how much available funding is there in the EU?
One of the reasons that so many researchers come to the US, even with our decline in research funding over the last 30 years, is because the US makes available so much God damn funding in comparison to any western world. The reason China is starting to outstrip the US? Because they are starting to surpass the US in funding. The only downside I have heard from Chinese scientists is that you tend to get pigeon holed for the rest of your career into things the state wants/needs
Because there is less competition for jobs and grants. Europe spends more on academic research (as a fraction of GDP) than the US, but there are more people competing for the funding.
Are you sure about that? Most people miss the fact that a sizeable % of our military budget is slated for research grants/funding.
I'm a physicist in academia, and the amount of money we have gotten from DoD branches for things that have no immediate military applications is like 40-60% of our budget YoY. Like for straight fundamental physics research.
Most scientists I know who have gone to Europe have had to go into the private sector. And the famous ones I work with have gotten like blank check $10M offers from max planck and directorships with guaranteed $1m/yr funding, and still turned them down.
From a European perspective, the most noticeable sign of this is the scarcity of postdocs at American universities. Some fields and individual labs are better funded, but on the average, the universities lean heavily on students doing the actual research.
Because postdocs are basically slavery. The expectation here is that after a top Ph.D. (which tend to be longer than in Europe), you get a real academic job (assistant professor).
The actual expectation is that after finishing PhD, you take a journeyman position, where you can practice the skills needed in an academic career and gradually gain independence while being mentored by a senior academic. Then, if you were successful, you get a permanent position. The postdoc path fails, as there is no clear path to a permanent position. The assistant professor path fails, because the funding system requires you to become a manager without sufficient experience.
European PhDs vary in duration. The most common system is 3+2+4 years for bachelor's + master's + PhD, which is not that different from the American 4+5 years for bachelor's + PhD. (Those are nominal durations, and actual studies usually take longer.)
In most European countries, a postdoc is a nice enough middle-class job. If you are interested in an academic career after finishing PhD, you have good chances of getting a postdoc position. The real bottleneck comes after the postdoc stage, as faculty positions are scarce in most European universities.
They are referring specifically to research funding for people employed in academia. The US funds a huge amount of research outside of academia.
A large percentage of the US DoD research budget is going to researchers outside of academia, for example. This includes a lot of relatively pure research with no immediate military application.
The more important US vs Europe difference is that in US there's much more funds for the research -> startup -> scaleup stages.
There's plenty of academics doing fundamental research in Europe. But somehow the ball is dropped on turning that research into successful businesses. So eg. uni graduates doing research in EU, then move to US & found a startup there, is sadly a common pattern.
As I understand it, mostly due to funding suppliers (gov, VCs, banks etc) being more risk-averse than in US. Regulation pressure doesn't help either.
The attribution here is that the researcher works for an academic institution. It reflects the reality that the US funds much more research outside of academic institutions than Europe.
This title is such clickbait. All the article talks about is a Dutch fund created to recruit scientists and they have successfully recruited them. At 1 million euros per head.
They have the first 34 researchers, all from top universities and institutes. That’s a major achievement, because as the article says, every researcher brings new knowledge as well as a whole international network with them.
Exactly; the biggest company in the Netherlands and its products (ASML and high end lithography machines), is built on top of the works of only a handful of researchers. The US nuclear weapons and space programs were similarly built on top of researchers they got from Europe. This is very much NOT a numbers game, and I want to believe top researchers rate their work and the benefit of humanity higher than a country, especially if that country is backsliding.
> the biggest company in the Netherlands and its products (ASML and high end lithography machines), is built on top of the works of only a handful of researchers.
This is... wildly wrong. ASML is a multi-national company that licenses IP largely from USA and Japan, but also Taiwan and Germany. The actual EUV light source is developed and produced in California by Cymer, which ASML acquired in 2013. But ASML was only permitted to acquire the company under a strict technology sharing and export control agreement with the US government. Additionally, a huge portion of the photolithography research is directly developed (and owned) by US companies and research organizations such as IBM, Albany NanoTech, and SEMATECH.
There is a reason why ASML's next-generation research photolithography machine is currently being installed and developed in upstate New York, and not somewhere in the Netherlands. The same reason that Cymer is still in San Diego instead of being relocated to Europe.
OP was slightly mistaken. The laser itself is provided by TRUMPF, a German company. Cymer (USA) integrates that laser with tin droplet, plasma, optical, vacuum, and control technologies to create the complete DUV/EUV light sources.
> There is a reason why ASML's next-generation research photolithography machine is currently being installed and developed in upstate New York, and not somewhere in the Netherlands. The same reason that Cymer is still in San Diego instead of being relocated to Europe.
Seems accurate enough to me. That’s not a ton of money to uproot your life over tbh. Shows there’s willingness to leave with a little bit of incentive.
Dutch researcher salaries are also pretty high (compared both to median Dutch salaries and academic salaries around the world), so it's still not like you're leaving USA to live in poverty
China is not very immigration friendly to non-han folks, but I guess chinese researchers won't make it to the US and this already will have a great effect on the chinese economy.
Europe is in its own set of problems and it is not in the same situation that US used to be after WW2 (only major economy not affected by bombing).
Europe's problems:
* active major war in Ukraine (lasting longer than Axis/Soviet war in WW2)
* energy supply issues (unlike US it's not energy sufficient and the places that supply it with energy are involved with wars)
* a wall of people aging away from employment and into doctor's and hospital waiting rooms (forcing less investment into research and roads/bridges/railway, more towards stabilizing pensions, healthcare)
* major pieces of the european export economy are being replaced by China (eg chinese car brands eating the lunch of european car brands).
Europe is not immigration friendly as well if you don't speak the native language, of course one could live in an English speaking bubble, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in Academia.
It's extremely feasible. English is the defacto language of most research in the EU. I spent some time in Italy during my masters degree and know lots of people who have gone on to research or university instructor jobs in various countries in the EU. You definitely have to learn at least some of the local language for day-to-day life though.
Politically speaking, the top polling party in Germany refuses to have a discussion about neo-nazis in its ranks, and boasts that "we are growing stronger and larger all the time":
Similar things are going on in the UK (Reform/Restore) and France, where most projections have the National Rally candidate winning the next presidential election:
Anti-immigrant sentiments are surging all around the world: Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Switzerland nearly passed an immigration freeze far more draconian than anything Trump ever proposed.
> immigration freeze far more draconian than anything Trump ever proposed
as a swiss i am very happy that we didn't vote this through, but you're still being very hyperbolic. they wanted to put a cap on the population, which is bonkers, don't get me wrong.
however, no jail-like deportation centers, gestapo-like policeforce searching for immigrants and unlawfully putting them into trucks and many more things trump did and wants to do which my mind tries to forget.
there is an issue with people hating immigrants in our country, but please don't suggest that we're on US/Trump level, which to me seems more like what the germans started to do in the beginning* of you know what and who.
*comparing it to the beginning on purpose. not yet on total annihilation mode, but seeing as there's reports of hundreds of people going missing from Alligator Alcatraz, and minding the people who have been shot/killed, y'all are doing a good job of repeating history.
There's a difference between hamfisted/uneven attempts to enforce immigration law which is already on the books, and proposing a total freeze on legal immigration. Trump never did the latter. The US came closer to a total freeze in the 1920s.
The push back is against violent illegal uneducated freeloading immigrants that are flooding Europe. Of course political parties that point out the problem are going to do well. Get rid of economic migrants & freeloaders shopping for welfare, and there will be support for highly educated immigrants.
Likely not a problem, especially in Academia. A family member is doing a Phd in Poland, everyone is English speaking and they have lots of students from all over the world. Could be worse in places like France, where English proficiency is historically lower, but I doubt it would be a factor in higher education.
The keywords in the headline are "Nobel laureate". They are superstars in academia and are getting money, resources and convenience that a tenured US professor cannot dream of. These are extremely rare compared to the number of Chinese professors in US universities.
> Not going to even mention the obscene difference in racism OR the language barrier, both of which are enormous factors.
Language wise, absolutely. Racism-wise, I think you underestimate how wildly racist the US is. As a European, I am still quite shocked. Everything in that country is viewed through the lens of skin color.
I think the main difference between Europe and the US is that European progressives tend to have a lot of national vanity and believe that their country doesn't have racism, regardless of the evidence. US progressives tend to have national self-hatred (the US is one of the world's most self-hating countries, according to polls) and work really hard to find racism everywhere.
I see the rise of the far right as fundamentally different in Europe and the US. In Europe it's driven by migrants who don't integrate well. In the US, immigrants typically integrate well, and the far right is fundamentally a reaction to our crazy far left: https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/how-crazy-is-darializa-avila... The US far right is worried about immigrants because they believe immigrants will vote for far left candidates, even though the data doesn't exactly support that position.
I am a European. I don't even remember when was the last time I had a conversation about race with someone who isn't American. And with Americans, it was mostly about how I supposedly owe something to other people because my skin is white.
> No dual citizenship at all, most probably no citizenship.
Citizenship is basically impossible unless you are born to Chinese parents, but work visas in China are lightyears easier to get than the US H1B shitshow. In China all you need is an employer's invitation and you can more or less get a work visa, especially if it's for a skilled job in science, technology, or finance.
> Not going to even mention the obscene difference in racism
I'm non-white and I've felt far more racism in the US than China. That isn't to say racism doesn't exist, but it's much less.
> OR the language barrier, both of which are enormous factors.
Language is not a barrier unless you think it is. The IQ of people in China isn't particularly different than the IQ of people anywhere else in the world. If 1 billion people can learn a language, you can.
I doubt many of the researchers migrating even want Chinese citizenship and the chains that come along with it, so why do most people (presumably Americans) keep harping on and on about it?
Once you're invited by the CCP for your exceptional research background, you're literally given an open chequebook for both your personal compensation and your future research endeavors. You're allowed to take your family along with you too, and the language barrier doesn't translate in the professional setting. Racism is a non-issue since I doubt these researchers will even be interacting with elements of that segment of Chinese Han society, unless they choose to.
Technically yes, but the ways US and China treat foreigners are at two extremes.
As long as you are invited and keep your mouth shut about ccp, China does not care about papers. One famous example is an athlete, when questioned about nationality after winning an Olympic gold medal for China, publicly claimed that I am Chinese when I am in China, and American when I am in the US.
>I doubt many of the researchers migrating even want Chinese citizenship and the chains that come along with it, so why do most people (presumably Americans) keep harping on and on about it?
Because it's an important matter regarding immigration. If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?
>Once you're invited by the CCP for your exceptional research background, you're literally given an open chequebook for both your personal compensation and your future research endeavors.
None of which is related to immigration.
>You're allowed to take your family along with you too, and the language barrier doesn't translate in the professional setting.
>Racism is a non-issue since I doubt these researchers will even be interacting with elements of that segment of Chinese Han society, unless they choose to.
Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
This just reads like deeply, deeply delusional reasoning attempting to paint China as a good alternative.
Citizenship is quite politicized in the US, but in Asia (and probably most of the world) most immigrants will never obtain citizenship. There are many reasons for this I can get into if you want, but it's a tangent. All this generally entails, as opposed to permanent residency, is that your children won't be citizens by default, you can't vote, and that you need to occasionally notify immigration of where you live. On the other issue - yeah you can 100% not interact with locals if you choose.
Any position that's hiring foreigners is going to have multiple foreigners. And it creates a scenario where, by default, foreigners will hang out with foreigners and locals will hang out with locals. The same is true outside of work as there tend to be large expat communities everywhere and even schools/communities almost entirely for expats.
Immigrants (especially in Asia) are never going to blend in with the local population naturally. The cultures are so far removed that you'll never 'fit in.' That doesn't mean you can't make local friends and acquaintances, but that you can choose not to. And yeah I'd highly recommend almost anywhere in Asia to people, including China. It's an amazing place to raise children - ironic given Asia's at the forefront of the global fertility crisis.
It's nothing what like you probably imagine if you've never been. You can find about a zillion videos of people vlogging about their life in Asia. Here [1] is some random video from an American in China. Granted, he speaks crazy good Chinese so it's a different perspective than the one I'm talking about, but he can hit on more issues re:China. I've visited China, but never lived there. He's been there 16 years.
I don't think OP is doing this, just stating the obvious. The invitation implies $$$ but not naturalization.
> If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?
Yeah might, so it is big question depending on the situation, and even bigger once you got more passports or permanent residence. For example people intentionally avoid US permanent residence or citizenship for global taxation.
> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
All the time, especially the US expats in China. They tend to live in nice communities for foreigners in a few tier-1 cities, they go to western style international hospitals and their kids goes to fancy international schools. Basically employers have everything prepared nicely for them, hence the contrast of China between foreigners and citizens.
In terms of racism in China or east Asia as a whole, there is practically no problem for white ppl, small problem for indians, big problem for blacks.
In the reverse direction in the US there are Chinese/Latino spending their lives in their own ethnic community without speaking English at all, it is not that uncommon, just invisible.
Have you ever lived overseas? Honestly you sound delusional. Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen? Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place. Acting like the bar for living somewhere is citizenship is nuts.
> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
This pretty much confirms you have never lived overseas lol. Anyone who has will have met many people that achieve this. Like living anywhere immersing yourself in your surroundings (w/e that means to you) takes extra effort. Most people go overseas to work. It's not playtime. With that comes a built in community.
> None of which is related to immigration
How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?
Why are you so reactive about something you clearly know nothing about? Because China bad?
I have lived abroad, yes. Does the USA make it easy to become a citizen? If the comparison is China, yes, a thousand times yes. Does language and society matter a truckload? Absolutely.
>Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place.
Yes. Does China treat immigrants better than the US? As I explained, no. There is no contest. The comparison borders on the absurd. The US is a remarkably flawed country in many aspects, but the vast majority of the stigma around its immigration comes from the fact that it's a matter that the US takes very, very seriously. The bar for living somewhere is not necessarily citizenship but it absolutely is a factor if someone is seriously planning to immigrate somewhere.
For an incredibly evident and very current example, the 14th amendment was very recently reaffirmed, with a whole lot of people being horrified it was even thrown into question at all.
>How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?
Because any quantity of money beyond a livable wage has barely any relation to integrating people into a culture. A model of immigration based on money is not immigration at all, that's just hiring foreign workers.
You clearly have a certain cultural fixation with immigration that frankly is pretty narrow and seems of a particular American variety.
How is the condition of foreign workers not a question of immigration? What distinction are you making? Is your logic the United States treats immigrants well because any foreign national treated under a subpar regime you get to reclassify as a "foreign worker"?
You know not all "foreign workers" are treated the same right? This applies to almost all countries. Plenty of people are happy to go to a place and work. Not everyone who goes to a place wants to or plans to become part of that culture. Or would expect to fully integrate. It is a balance. The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.
Where did you live overseas? For how long? Did you consider it "immigration"? What were the terms of your status re work? Did you become a citizen?
I just don't really buy it. For someone who lived overseas the narrowness of your perspective is rather alarming.
Why would you apologize for that? Name one claim I've made that is impeached by your "experience"?
Doubtless many others have shared your experiences. Good for you. It's not really the point. My questions as to the OP I was responding to of a personal nature were quite obviously rhetorical. The point was to perhaps suggest some introspection. Not everyone's experiences are the same.
The more substantive questions have still not been answered. Oh well, I'm not owed anything.
But the fact you doubled down with a "me too" shows you also missed the point. I can supply you with people who have the opposite experience. Will you suddenly have a different view?
How have you spent two decades out of the US and found yourself so self assured? In your two decades did you not come across thousands with different experiences than you? Why would this give you such a high opinion of your own?
Fair enough. To be clear, these were made mostly in jest, in response to similarly assertive language made by the OP, which I guess you identified with. I certainly may be overly optimistic about Americans going overseas and learning some humility. But it's not like this is the first time I've been disappointed in this manner. Oh well.
I'm still curious if the OP acknowledges that some countries may make it easier to be a "foreign worker" vs a "citizen" and whether that has any value. I don't take these debates personally. I think the question of foreign worker vs immigrant could be an interesting one. Have a nice day!
Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?
I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Please read more carefully next time. Or if you think the reaffirmation was itself impressive, please just say so.
>Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, exactly. The US is not the only country which offers birthright citizenship. But I don't believe there are any other countries like this in Europe or Asia.
>I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Learn to read.
The OP brought up the 14th in the context of the country's stance towards immigrants. From this POV, I don't see why you would give undue weight to the reaffirmation compared with the "the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself".
You can have the last word in this thread. Your incivility to clarity ratio is way too high for me to wish to continue further with you.
It's not about the last word. Just make a decent argument. There's nothing personal here. I actually hope to be corrected. That would be interesting. I don't hold anything against you.
As to your actual question, the reason is because they brought up the reaffirmation. Those were their words. As such, I gave it weight because they did - that was the point I was responding to.
As to the first part of your reply, I think it's very interesting actually. Birthright citizenship may not be exclusive to the United States, but it is relatively uncommon. The unique history of the United States plays a big part in this. This also does not automatically mean that the United States is a better place for immigrants today. One counterpoint is how it makes many of the debates around American immigration have a distinctly racial or cultural nature as nativist elements of the population want to find ways to control who can be born here. Of course it's not like those debates don't also happen elsewhere. No place is perfect.
I'm just pushing back against the self satisfaction of the OP I was replying to. These things are nuanced. I apologize if in my zeal to pushback I made you upset. Have a good day.
> Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen?
Just because there are plenty of countries that make it easier to become a citizen doesn't mean there aren't plenty of countries that make it worse.
People going the H-1/O-1 route in a STEM field with an MS degree don't have a hard time becoming a citizen, unless they're Indian (and a little bit if Chinese). Literally everyone I know from my university and work days who went that route got it. A few got audited along the way, which added 1-2 years to the process, but they all still got it.
Now compare that with many friends of mine who left the US for ideological reasons and moved to countries where ... they have no hope for permanent residency, let alone citizenship. I just recently visited one of them - he has been in that country for 18 years, and is about to be kicked out because the economy is poor and they likely won't renew his residency status. For all those years, he never had a path to permanent residency (without paying a huge amount of money).
Another is a faculty member at a good university in the country he's in. He's surrounded by people who've spent their whole careers at that university and are now wondering where they'll move to post-retirement.
Yet another has spent almost two decades in a third country. He likes it, but admits the pressure to never lose a job and always find a stable one so he doesn't get kicked out does get to him sometimes.
> China is not very immigration friendly to non-han folks
What do you mean? I've never been to China, but know quite a few non-han white Europeans who lived there for both shorter and longer periods of time. Some studied, others worked there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China has a good summary (click through to its sources); as of 2020 there were about 1.5 million immigrants in China, just under 600K of which from Hong Kong/Macao/Taiwan; as of 2023 there's 12.000 people with permanent residency cards, which would be the expats that live and work there without nationalizing.
The relative population size of those countries likely plays a role there. Split China into 4 countries, each with a population about equal to that of the USA, and I bet that number for China goes up significantly. Split it into 75 countries each the size of the Netherlands, and it would go up even further (some people moving home within Beijing would emigrate)
100% becoming more closed. I have been trying to live in China for over 15 years… I finally managed the last 3 years, but its an forever struggle/gamble each year and each year the requirements get tougher (to get a work/residence permit). But yeah.. same goes for Europe
No, total immigration matters. Human progress is always subject to the law large numbers.
Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
China is the opposite of that. You are hard hammered into the Han-ness, immediately. The language, the writing (which is a HUGE hurdle), the food, the way of life.
For what it's worth, this is the terminology I learned in school decades ago, but I don't think it's preferred anymore. My daughter has a book that calls it a "salad" instead (mixed but retaining their respective properties). I'm probably just old and crotchety but I like that way less.
Maybe. One thing to like about the "melting pot" analogy is that people from one culture exposed to a different dominant culture don't just retain their distinct character as if it was like the pieces of carrot in a salad, they are altered by this experience.
Chicken Tikka Masala didn't exist in India. And if you went to any British restaurant in 1900 they wouldn't serve this dish either. But in a British Indian restaurant today it's a staple because at some point (when and by who is debated) somebody in one of those restaurants was like "We should make a sauce to match local tastes" and it was created.
I think the sweet spot is somewhere in between. You want enough of a melting pot that everyone gets plenty of exposure to the mainstream culture, but enough of a salad bowl that they can "take a break" and relax in the culture they are familiar with.
>No, total immigration matters. Human progress is always subject to the law large numbers.
Human change can be subject to the law of large numbers, but nothing necessitates any particular change being towards progress.
>Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
>The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity
That's a bit of an oversimplification. They were British colonies for well over 100 years before declaring independence. The US Census website states:
"Not surprisingly, the first census reported that based on the names of heads of families, more than 90% of the White population in 1790 hailed from British stock: English (83.5%), Scottish (6.7%) and Irish (1.6%)."
>And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
Not many European colonial powers purchased land from natives the way the US did. For example, considering the Louisiana Purchase area, the US paid over 20x as much to natives living in that area as the US paid to France:
> Human change can be subject to the law of large numbers, but nothing necessitates any particular change being towards progress.
The same can be said of the "Great Man Theory" (or its adaptation by selecting immigrants based on some selected set of skills). You don't know that you're making society better, you're just selecting for a certain set of skills.
> The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
This isn't true and it ignores the cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin). That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
>This isn't true and it ignores the cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin).
You got it backwards. This is BASED on the "cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin)". That was what made the place have no "prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia".
>That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
Those would be relevant for explaining the "American melting pot", if the latter wasn't established after erasing both their culture and, to a large degree, them.
In America there's a very sharp geographical distinction between which people oppose the melting pot and which see it as a core part of the American experience.
People from the big immigrant cities like NYC, SF, LA are more likely to hold the latter position.
People can feel how they want to feel, campaigns are run on feelings and not facts. Just because Trump says Haitians are eating cats and dogs doesn't make it true.
The Mormons of Utah, the Cajun/French of Louisiana, the Norwegians in the Dakotas, the Scotch Irish of everywhere, and the Amish are all (non-brown) examples of enclaves existing in the US. Nobody says that they are not assimilating well. We let them live their lives because personal liberty used to be a thing here.
Likewise you haven't disproven my thesis that China is not closed to immigrants.
A good friend of mine (white European) was approached by a Chinese company and now works in China. I'll ask him how hard the paperwork was the next time I meet him, but I have a feeling his employer did the bulk of it.
I've never been to China either. It's a huge country and it probably depends on where you are (hong kong probably friendlier than a random place in the mainland), but from what I heard/read:
* language issues. Many chinese don't speak english. Also a problem in many european countries (esp latin and slavic speaking ones), but at least the european languages are easier to learn. Compare this to Amsterdam, Goteborg, Berlin-Mitte or Kopenhagen where everyone speaks english.
* citizenship is one of the hardest to get in the world.
* I heard complaints about onboarding into the chinese app/digital ID ecosystem.
On HK you can get permanent residence after I believe 5 years of working in there. That said… you will need a HIGH paying job to be able to achieve that. China mainland has a similar thing (‘green card’) but the requirements are kinda unobtainable for anyone below CEO of Starbucks level
Tangent, but I’m really curious what country you’re from that uses the endonym for Göteborg but then also spells the capital of Denmark like Kopenhagen?
I'm born and raised German, and above I mostly used the German ways of writing the town names (stripping the umlaut). Which as it turns out are not the same way you'd write it in english, interesting!
I'm pretty certain all languages do that. It's fairly common to bastardize/assimilate the names of important cities and/or trade hubs into the local language, but leave smaller names unchanged. That's why it's Milano/Milan, Venezia/Venice but Cagliari doesn't have an americanized name; that's why it's Moskva/Moscow but still Irkutsk; Warszawa/Warsaw, Gdansk/Danzig (in German), Katowice/Kattowitz (in German), etc.
Though it was years ago now, I did spend a couple of years frequently traveling to China for fairly long stays. I learned enough Mandarin to get by on my own. The "scariest" thing is realizing you might have to walk for an hour in a random direction to come across a landmark like a known metro station or a hotel where you can get a taxi and have the concierge translate your desired destination.
I was mostly in first tier cities, though I did travel through some more obscure places. The worst hostility I experienced was 5 foot tall grandma with sharp elbows determined to cut in line in front of the big stupid foreigner who is passive aggressively placing his wheelie bag in her way.
If you're curious, just go. The cities are amazing, the people are friendly. Even in Beijing you can easily avoid the tourist traps. While it's not as perfectly safe as Japan or Taiwan, I spent a lot of jet lag recovery time wandering the streets late at night. Once I spent half an hour in a taxi garage at 2am at some unknown location after a 45 minute misdirected taxi ride, arranging a ride to my intended hotel. I think that's about as lost as one can get and it was fine.
I think the concern is more along the lines of social integration than criminal hostility. Japan for instance has basically zero crime, and tons of tourists, but is notoriously impossible to ever become "Japanese" as an outsider.
I have to wonder who aspires to become Japanese or Chinese, or even the superficially plausible goal of me becoming German. It just wouldn't enter my mind.
As for social integration, the Chinese people I met seemed astonished and pleased that I could make any headway with the language or the food.
Would it be silly to add "general lack of air conditioning" to that list? I imagine at some point it inevitably stops being a joke and starts being a real problem. Have we reached that point yet? [1] [2]
Europe is lacking AC because we never had to deal with 30°C at night before the last 5-10 years. And for the regions where we needed to (like, around the Mediterranean), guess what, AC is everywhere there.
You know what, me, an European, just received this morning ? The AC unit I ordered.
It's not hard to install AC in Europe, it's just that until a few years ago, we never needed it. The only real blocker today is when you are living in an apartment and the condominium council refuses AC installation for esthetical reasons, but it's something that can change (either by the vote of co-owners, or by law if needed). And if you are renting, you are stuck until the legislation changes and forces owners to provide summer comfort the same way they must provide heating in winter.
Its orders of magnitude harder. When I lived in the USA, I could just pick up a $200 window unit and have it installed within minutes. Every single person had air conditioning. Now I live in Finland where the windows are the worst designed windows I've ever seen. They are thin, tall windows that open vertically on hinges like doors. So rain gets in, and its impossible to install a window AC or even a box fan. You're forced to either install a mini split ($1000+) or central air. And neither options are available for renters. Really, the #1 priority should be trying to bring American style sliding windows to Europe. Then everything else can fall into place downstream of that.
That's exactly what I wrote though. You CAN install a normal split. You are blocked because as a renter you don't have the power to.
My point is that we are not in an AC crisis, we just need to change the laws so that owners are forced to provide, however they want, summer comfort in the same way they must provide winter comfort.
Unlike energy autonomy, green transition, or defense issues, the "AC issue" is actually easy to tackle for governments and I'm betting it will happen pretty soon because that's an easy win that costs nothing to governments and governments loves popular measures that cost nothing and and give them the good role.
You are wrong. Nothing in the US stops a landlord from preventing you from installing an AC and plenty do, for any reason they want.
My previous US apartment banned window mount air conditioners. I was stuck with a "mobile" AC unit that could barely handle a little humidity. Even someone in a "Historic" property in Europe that isn't allowed to touch anything would have that option as well.
I just moved to Portugal and had zero issues installing a portable unit to help me survive the heatwave. For the hinged windows you just grab an installation kit that works with them and you're good to go. The only problem is that the portable AC I got is not a window unit (& it's single-hose), but I wanted to have it before the heatwave started and don't care too much about few percentage points in lost efficiency as long as it keeps me and my pets alive. Total cost was €320 with the installation kit for a 12000BTU unit.
I'm actually surprised you were fine with single-hose. I've never seen a single-hose portable A/C unit that did an adequate job. AIUC, the laws of physics make that rather difficult. In fact I've sometimes seen them actively make things worse. Whereas I have seen dual-hose do an adequate job.
Also note, "survive" is a rather low bar. We're talking about encouraging some of the world's top researchers to move from the US across the ocean. I'm admittedly not in their shoes, but I imagine mere survival isn't their criterion.
I had single-hose both when I lived in USA and now, and didn't have any issues with it cooling down the room I wanted to have cooled down. My bar is "survival of my pets" because rabbits supposedly can't handle more than 25C. Their room stayed well below that temperature both in USA (Seattle suburbs, west-facing in a house that wasn't insulated) and now in Portugal.
Ive seen a few single hose AC units that worked okay. I still don't understand why they exist though. The window installment at its minimum span is still putting the ends quite far apart and would increase efficiency.
Unfortunately, I could not find a dual-hose unit off-the-shelf in any of the local stores and didn't have any hopes of getting it in time if I ordered it online.
Can sliding windows be properly insulated? In general cold is a bigger deal in Europe than warmth, and will continue to be so.
German style tilting windows close as tightly as the regular (or door-like as you say) do. UK has windows sliding up, but is also famous for being drafty as the windows are never tight. I suppose good sliding windows can exist though?
I have myself pondered the problem with regular windows and a movable AC. My apartment has old school 4-pane windows with 2 layers both having their own window handles, so 8 independent small windows for each opening. They do look great in an old building but I don't see any reasonable way to set up AC with these. Thankfully no need yet as the apartment has never reached 30C inside, but we'll see what the future brings.
Yes. Beyond that, if they didn't work they wouldn't be used. Continental climates get much colder than pretty much anywhere in Europe, outside of a select few areas.
> In general cold is a bigger deal in Europe than warmth, and will continue to be so.
Masonry is a bad match for cold. The structure acts as a high velocity heat conduit and the earth eats all the heat you produce. Europe's winters (in general) are extremely mild, arguably even more so than its summers.
> Yes. Beyond that, if they didn't work they wouldn't be used.
My usual experience from London was extremely leaky single pane sliding windows, that's why the question. To be fair, that air flow was probably the only saving grace against mold in those buildings.
My house in the US has windows like that. I have a cut and painted board to replace the window with in the summer because of it. I hate these windows because of that though.
You can just buy plastic that you attach to the frame around the window with a hole for the hose. Its reasonable air tight, but we typically get air from outside for ventilation anyway.
The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point. As everything that comes out of republicans these days it's misdirected and purely politically motivated. And it's none of their business anyway. They're just trying to stir up extreme-right sentiment here.
Yes many houses don't have AC. We didn't need it so much until climate change (of which the US is one of the largest contributors no less). But if you move here and care about it just pick a place that has it or where you can install it. It's available if you want it.
It's not a big thing that should be influencing any decision to move. It's just being blown up and politicised because of the current heatwave. Aircon is not prohibited nor frowned upon here, it's just that we didn't really need it so much before and people are still reluctant to invest in it. Especially in the more northern countries it's not really needed anyway, during a heatwave yes but that's a couple weeks a year. Also, it's not a complete solution. Most of us here live outdoor much more, we don't drive cars much so we need to deal with the heat outside anyway.
We also have nice community options like climate shelters here.
> The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point.
I think the truth is somewhere inbetween the extremes. My understanding is that while air conditioning is not legally banned in Europe, its usage and installation are heavily restricted. Strict building codes, energy-saving laws, and local aesthetic regulations in historic districts often make acquiring or running an AC unit highly complicated.
It's an old bit of banter that the world over has thrown at certain European countries (including other European countries). Giving American republicans custody of it because of an explosive penetration into the mainstream in the last few weeks is ridiculous.
I would highly recommend not legitimizing the American political system so readily.
...what are you talking about? This was from my personal experience being in Europe many times, including in the middle of this very last heat wave. This one thing made it miserable. I couldn't even sleep and had to move to other buildings more than once. On more than one occasion locals themselves told me there were legal reasons certain buildings couldn't have A/C, despite them wanting to install it. And it from people there that I heard - several times - about the deaths when I complained about the lack of A/C, not from right-wing US media! I had no idea Republicans were even talking about this until your comment!
I'm not even blaming Europe for having so little A/C - more power to them for being able to handle the heat with less impact on climate change; they have my approval! I'm just saying if you're expecting Americans to immigrate there, this seems like a very real obstacle. That's all.
Maybe monumental buildings might have some regulatory concern but where I live it's not an issue. My neighbours in the same flat have 2 big condensers (the outside box of a split AC box) on their balcony. I just don't want to invest in it myself so I have only one of those stupid porta units, not great but it does the job when I need to cool down a bit. And our building is monumental from the 1800s. Also, every single hotel and commercial place has it.
But really in the netherlands which this article is about it should not be a barrier. The weather there in summer is extremely variable. Yes you get some hot days but they are few. And like I said, if you really want AC you are free to pick a place that has it. If you're a skilled migrant you will be well compensated anyway. You will have your pick. Viewing that as a barrier is just blowing things out of proportion.
The same way that American media is these days talking about Europe like it's overrun with migrants, it's just political.
> Maybe monumental buildings might have some regulatory concern
No it was not "monumental buildings". These were very average buildings I'm talking about. In fact I saw two related buildings, only one of which was permitted to have A/C (and an awful portable one at that), as the locals told me. Everyone complained about it.
Be glad where you live isn't like this, but this is not universal.
> Also, every single hotel and commercial place has it.
I can't speak for your city or the Netherlands but this is absolutely not even remotely true universally in Europe. Most places I found (yes that includes nice hotels, yes in multiple countries) lacked A/C, and even the ones that had something they called "air conditioning" on the booking websites vehemently rejected the notion that they have A/C when you asked them in person -- in their own eyes it wasn't proper A/C, and I agreed with them after trying it.
Republicans aren't talking about it, people are making fun of Europe on X for their lack of AC, and how regulations are whats keeping them from having AC. This is coming from right wing Europeans. I think the parent is tilting at windmills.
That's literally what I heard from locals. I have no idea what 'wing' they were; they were just random locals I was asking about A/C. What I do know is everything I observed was consistent. Are you saying I should discredit all that based on an HN comment smearing them as "right-wing"?
I believe you dataflow. I am saying wolvoleo is tilting at windmills. Maybe a republican mentioned it, but it was a popular topic on X (formerly twitter). Which tends to cause a weird counter reaction on bluesky. Europeans are complaining about it, and then its causing this strange split where some are saying AC is racist/destroying the world, and others are saying AC is good and we need it and the european regulations keeping them from AC is bad.
It's coming from all over. It always has. It was understandably never so visible for people who don't hang out in casual international spaces, but it's not new and it's not owned by anyone. The reason it's so compelling isn't actually the lack of AC, it's because it's an easy button to push that gets people living in certain countries very defensive over something rather trivial.
I mean the lack of AC is definitely weird for a developed country, and the deflections about mild climate certainly aren't a posteriori, but it's the defensiveness and cope that makes it a button worth pushing in the first place.
Well I am very anti-right-wing yes but I saw one of the top dogs in the US administration complain about this recently, I think it was Vance or Hegseth.
> The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point.
No, it isn't. It's appalling, that a Philippino riverside shack that's on the verge of falling apart has functioning A/C while a high end home in pick-a-European-country does not. It's a cultural thing. Even now during a brutal heatwave, when I mention to friends in Europe, that things would be better if they had aircon at home, they start talking about planting trees and other "measures". Sometimes I wonder if they know how long does it take for a tree to grow.
That's pretty regional, countries that historically had warmer summers have them available on basically every house.
Where the heatwave is only recent, there are some bureaucratic issues (like historic buildings should not get "defaced" by the external unit and whatnot), but I think this is way too exaggerated when talking about the whole of the EU.
You forgot, amomg others, increasingly non-white popation due to laughable immigration policies; absurd environmental policies that result in high energy prices; red tape and high taxes in every aspect of life.
> Europe is in its own set of problems and it is not in the same situation that US used to be after WW2 (only major economy not affected by bombing).
Both Japan and South Korea were equally devastated and yet they managed to build world-class technology industries in the subsequent decades. I think the problems with Europe and the EU are a lot deeper than that.
A lot deeper than active wars and energy supply issues???
Europe's economy has been slowing down since 2007, which is the peak of conventional oil. The problem of Europe is that is doesn't have access to abundant energy like the US does. The US likes to think that they have a better economy because they are smarter/work harder, but the reality is simple: abundant energy makes the economy.
If you measure economical performance with PIB per capita, yeah, for sure, US has a better economy.
If you measure with anything else useful like (healthy) life expectancy or happiness level, state of the democracy, etc... like if you think the the economy must serve the people and not the other way, I'd say Europe is way more successful despite the real issues.
Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
>Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy.
You feel that way because the media (and the internet) is hyper focused on the bottom 50% of Americans. The households with 2 people earning <$40k per year each.
If you look at the higher brackets (you have to look because "Americans in the 75th percentile live great" is not a clickable story) America is a better place to live if you work a job that pays well.
The plots for "comfortable living vs income" in the US and Europe are different, and that difference is endlessly arbitraged and any boring news day to pump out another "Life in Europe is better" story.
Sorry but I don't share your view. A society where the bottom 50% can't live a decent life is just dysfunctional. I don't care which country is best for the riches (and actually, Europe is good for the riches), I care that the economy is there to allow everyone to live a decent and meaningful life.
This perspective implies that you should be vigilant to keep out poor or unskilled immigrants who might struggle to afford the quality of life you require for citizens.
>You feel that way because the media (and the internet) is hyper focused on the bottom 50% of Americans. The households with 2 people earning <$40k per year each.
Poverty in the US is similar to poverty in Sweden, according to this dataset:
I think there is just a lot of misinformation out there. Americans love to complain, and other countries love to criticize the US. These effects create systematic misconceptions which no one bothers to fact-check.
I mean the real unspeakeable secret is how the American mid-high-middle-class/upper-class has so effectively turned financially transparent despite being the wealthiest group in the country. The 65% to 99% are just an absolute hulking bag of cash.
The battle in the US is between the mid-low-middle-class/lower-class and the 1%. Which is just so incredibly effective at diverting attention from where all the actual money is. When you can pull your head out of the swamp of social media and fountains of clickbait/class ragebait, there is this huge elephant sitting in the room with it's finger over it's mouth doing the "shhh, be quiet" motion.
>Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
Norway produces oil at Saudi Arabia levels per capita:
> I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
It's just a totally different scale of comparison that does not work - those Nordic countries are smaller than many counties in US states. It's like comparing Iceland to Santa Barbara, etc.
Since 2007, the European economy is in contraction if you look at physical indicators like "how much stuff do trucks move" or "what area is being built". That correlates directly with the peak of conventional oil and the fact that oil has been harder to get in Europe since 2007.
>The US likes to think that they have a better economy because they are smarter/work harder, but the reality is simple: abundant energy makes the economy.
The most valuable American companies are not exactly in energy-intensive industries:
Everything depends on energy. Driving a car is a lot cheaper in the US because of abundant energy. That has an impact on the economy (the economy is pretty much trucks moving stuff around).
Is "GFC" the subprimes crisis? Because that one, in 2008, may well be a consequence of the peak of conventional oil. It's not "some peak for Europe", it is THE peak for the world of, well, conventional oil, which means anything that is not the shale oil in North America.
Peak oil means that oil becomes harder to get. That's the definition of the peak: the production increases until the peak, and decreases after. When the economy is directly correlated to oil, it means that a decrease in oil results in the economy slowing down.
> I don't see the peak oil connection there - what is it?
We got an economical crisis right when we reached peak oil production. Again, there is an extremely clear correlation between oil production and the economy.
Since 2007, the US has had access to shale oil and the likes, so they haven't reached their peak yet. Europe, on the other hand, has reached their peak in 2007. And since then, the economy (if you look at physical indicators, not artificial proxies like the GDP) is slowing down. Again an extremely clear correlation.
The world runs on Siemens, Bosch, Rolls Royce, Bayer. Even adversarial countries buy German Marine Diesels for their warships. Europe makes better warships than the US, who has spent the last 40 years twiddling it's thumbs and can no longer make modern frigates apparently, and prefers to spend it's naval efforts on the Tsar's moronic toy boat.
Unilever makes up half of the non-food items in your grocery store. Nestle makes up half the food items.
Novartis played a huge part in the Covid vaccines and also is just a giant medicine company in general. Novo Nordisk should be familiar to you.
ThyssenKrupp. It's twice the size of US Steel, which recently had to be sold to a US subsidiary of Nippon Steel because they sucked ass at keeping up with the times.
Britain makes better gas turbines than China and Russia for example. Europe reliably produces top tier weapons systems and infrastructure, competitive with American, often surpassing American systems currently. Thales, BAE, Airbus, Saab, Rheinmetal. The US Abrams tank uses a clone of a German gun. The Bradley is a BAE design. The US has always loved using European produced and designed large guns, such as from Oerlikon or Bofors, because they are always world class. Most of their military industry is.
Michelin tyres is a french company.
A lot of these names survived WW2. Thinking Europe doesn't know how to build big stuff, important stuff, etc, they seem to do a better job than the US at maintaining essential industry talent and continuation of industry. By value and jobs, the automotive industry facing competition will struggle, but Europe survived the rise of Japanese automakers far far better than US automakers did, primarily because they didn't just sit back and twiddle their thumbs for decades as the rest of the world advanced. Well, okay, Britain automakers struggled, but that's a good thing.
There are any number of smaller region/states that are already benefiting. Singapore comes to mind. Leading labs are all setting up in Singapore and both 1) internally-transferring their previously US-based talents on work visa to Singapore, and 2) using Singapore as a base for Asia hires, mostly notably from China.
For a lot of people it's easier to learn English than Chinese - you wouldn't get far if you don't speak the language in China. English gets you very far in Europe though, most research institutions, universities, high end professions, etc already have English as the going language because of the international character of these places.
I think you're missing my point. China does not need to or aim to attract any researcher from anywhere. Just attracting top tier ethnic Chinese researchers and technical talent from the US is already a big unequivocal win for them. That talent pool is big: any US Math/Physics Olympiad team of the past 10-20 years is >2/3rds ethnically Chinese. And for them, Europe is not necessarily a more attractive destination than China.
Chinese are far more open to working in foreign environments/contexts that Americans are, IMO. Just look at the foreign language learning statistics: most Americans tend to only know English, unless their family was fairly recently from a non-English speaking country. Meanwhile the Chinese landing in the US tend to already have decent English education, and dive right into doing what they're there to do.
Either they underestimate, which is ignorance, or they estimate properly and are anti-truth.
What use do propagandists and fascists have for research? It only stands to continually disprove their lies. They obviously hate science and truth and want it gone, to be replaced with cult of personality and Christian nationalism.
I apologise if this is overly negative. It is based on my experience working as a soft money researcher (my own grants) at a Dutch university. My opinions may not be shared.
In my experience The Netherlands is a rather unsupportive place to do research. There is essentially no money from the government that will pay salaries in full, especially early career salaries (vini, vidi, vici). I have had friends win ERC grants (millions in euros) that were fired as a result because there was not a space in the department to hire them full time (Dutch work law requires contracts to become permanent after a certain number of years of working). Departments also seem to have glass ceilings for non Dutch. Researchers are often given large teaching commitments that cannot be bought out with grants. University incubators seem to be better suited to let professors pretend to be start up founders then actual innovation centers. I have tried on multiple occasions to engage the local incubator and have always been run around. Yet local Dutch have no issues. The rules seem to be different for Dutch than for foreigners. A foreign colleague was offered a lucrative consulting contract (a normal thing for successful professors at other universities). The Dutch university he was at refused to let him take it except under the understanding the money would be entirely consumed by the university and he would receive no compensation for bringing in private money even though he would be doing all of the work. Meanwhile the Dutch colleague in the next office was allowed to start a private consulting agency through the local incubator and spend as much time as he wanted working in the start up. The universities publish reports how progressive they are by evaluating professors on teaching and outreach meanwhile having internal department expectations of PhD students to publish at least four first author papers or are not allowed to graduate (on four year contracts with one year full time teaching commitment). In my experience it is rare that PhD students finish on time. As one adminstrator told me, “university promoters are more interested in promoting their careers then their PhD students” (promoter is the word used for the adviser). The universities also disallow working outside of typical hours and there is no ability to work in your own office on the weekends. Also, recently they defended against this, but it will come up again, the government has discussed changing the tax law such that startup shares will have real world value so new valuations become taxable events.
This all is not atypical to universities world wide. But in the Netherlands I have not found a place that made me feel like I could work to the best of my ability and at the cutting edge. This is unfortunate. It’s nice to live here but I’m leaving to go to greener pastures.
> that were fired as a result because there was not a space in the department to hire them full time (Dutch work law requires contracts to become permanent after a certain number of years of working).
This is a very common law in european companies and is killing economic growth. Idk why they do this.
It's just labor law, these are countries where job security is considered very important. As a result, a lot hinges on having an indefinite duration contract.
The same rule exists in France and you'll have a hard time getting a loan or even a rental if you don't have the sacrosanct CDI (Indefinite Duration Contract), or legal guarantors with one.
It may seem absurd in these edge cases, but it's a way of putting pressure on employers to either hire people for the long term, or let them go.
In this case, it's not necessarily a bad thing in 90% of cases either (because those that don't get permanent employment despite scoring ERCs are certainly very rare), it prevents people from being stringed along in a lab where they're not really building up a career, but rather setting themselves up to be 40 and unemployable, when they're eventually not given the job security the lab would have given 5+ years earlier if they ever intended to/could do so.
I see a lot of complaining from small companies and startups. The taxing system is slowly becoming communism (I have no better word). And they also are stopping farming, based on bad ideas.
I tried to get into fundamental research, but disliked the burocratic approach in Dutch universities.
>Communism, in its classical sense, seeks public or common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private ownership of major productive assets
That's the eventual mathematical outcome of the new Dutch tax on unrealized capital gains, which combined with the fact that the tax system treats inflation as real gains means that over time the state will come to own all productive assets.
You don't really pay tax in a communist system. No need if the state pays all salaries. China first got a tax law in 1980 as part of Xiaoping's modernization of the Chinese economy and the opening up for the private market.
In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.
It just means giving someone money or a different incentive to convince them to do something they weren’t going to do or were undecided but considering doing and the extra incentive is the catalyst for making the decision.
We also have the legal concept of a bribe but the OP probably wasn’t using it in the legal sense - I.e. accusing the Netherlands of doing something illegal.
The money isn't really for the researchers personally, but for doing the research. They are merely offered a job at a time where their jobs are on the line in the USA. And not even that, they still have to apply and compete with top researchers from other parts of the world. Really hard to call that a bribe, even in a morally neutral way. At most you could say the Netherlands - and other European countries - are taking advantages of the situation where the USA is abandoning their top researchers.
But for years it has been the other way around. Top talent from the Netherlands has been moving to the US in order to get funding (and a bigger salary).
The OP is using the terms incentive and bribe interchangeably. People do that in the US all the time. I don't think anyone really thinks it is wrong or morally disagreeable what the Netherlands is doing nor are they using the term in the legal sense. I was just explaining why someone might have used that term, obviously the OP probably should speak for themselves though in case they did mean it in the legal sense or something.
Someone might say "dang they absolutely murdered that slice (I'm watching Wimbledon right now)". Nobody thinks well murdering is a crime, I need to go and comment on how the word murder is used inappropriately here.
> In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.
I live here in the US. I've NEVER heard the term bribe in a neutral or even positive way. It might be used in a mocking way, as if to mock the idea of bribes, but never seriously.
So, unless you are confusing that mocking nature as morally neutral or even positive, this is incorrect.
Not in a serious way, no (hence my 'mocking' commentary). It's always playing off the joke or idea of "bribe". But if someone said "I bribed a police officer" wouldn't take it as a joke.
Edit: And to be clear, I wouldn't describe either of those are "morally neutral or even positive situations."
But please, by all means tell me how "Foo Company bribed professional Bar" is used positively and frequently enough that the gp makes sense.
"De Jonge Akademie, an association of young scientists, warned last year that the fund could end up recruiting academic stars who are not under threat, at a time when Dutch universities were cutting jobs because of government cutbacks. The new cabinet reversed those cuts last month, pledging up to €428 million a year extra for research."
The article has failed to prove that anybody has taken the bait and left.
> For the researcher, the qualities must, from an international perspective, far exceed what is customary within the international peer group. The institution receives a maximum of €1 million per researcher for the next five years.
Let's be generous and assume you are one of the chosen ones. Your institution will take 20% off the top leaving with you 1million×.80/5 or 160k EUR per year.
After income taxes, your take home pay is €90,868.00 or $103k USD. Not bad for the average man, but not good for a top researcher like they want.
EUR 160k works out to about $182,640. For that level of income in a top tier institution in a state with an income tax like Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD you would take home $121,565, or 15% more.
Academic pay is standardised in many EU countries. For example in the UK you can look up union rates of pay. At UCL (I'm still currently affiliated as I finish my PhD) the pay for a professor starts at £82,157 and goes up to a minimum of £139,882 for the top band. There is an additional £4,678 on top as a London allowance. This roughly lines up with your figure per year, so seems reasonable as an allocation of cost.
Also there are usually very very generous pension schemes here, so total pay is actually quite a lot higher than stated. In addition there is very generous holiday allowance, 41 days at UCL for instance, since you get extra holidays when the university is closed over certain holiday days.
From the article, it sounds more like these funds are the research budget (what you pay other people with). This is quite attractive, students are typically < 200k / PhD, so you can fund quite a few theses with this right off the bat. Basically max out the lab for the grant duration.
I don't know what their salaries would be exactly. This is probably most dependent on where they land, as salaries are very often standardized in Europe. There's usually salary grids per institution dependent on seniority with some milestones being merit-based. Quick google search indicates gross salaries for Professor level (mid/late career) researchers to be around 110-165k€ in NL.
That seems pretty sweet. It's comparable to what US professors make in the hard sciences, as far as I know, with lower CoL than most areas where professors make similar salaries.
And again, salary isn't everything to a researcher. If they can't hire, they're pretty strapped. At this career stage, they're managers, not so much individual contributors. I'd say a maxed out lab for 5 years off the bat is pretty enticing, which also gives time to get up to speed on European funding schemes like ERC grants.
I was a postdoc in the US during Trump's reelection and there were several months where my institution and others had completely cut off scientific staff (such as postdocs, research scientists and engineers) recruitment due to NSF defunding and other threats. Even now, they got taxed on endowment and lost basically 10% budget. This is considerable, and a source of stress for researchers and their current/prospective staff. You can't work properly if you're under the Damocles sword of being laid off / having to lay off your staff.
America is like a trust fund baby given all the advantages and then the baby goes "fuck it, life is too hard, I am just going to do coke and die early”.
You mean the thing that held Screwworm at bay for decades and kept our beef prices low? That we will now need to spend $Billions re-curtailing because we don't have as much of the capability to do that anymore?
No. It is for research that wouldn't be funded by companies, since it is either too risky or has too long of a time-horizon. If all academic research was removed from the world you would notice a vast stagnation in technological progress. This can be confirmed by looking at what technologies have come from this process, and what private research built upon public research.
Yea, exactly. You should send all your top scientists to Europe. Great idea to get rid of them. Totally just dragging down your country. Send them to Europe.
They were the ones complaining that we were "brainwashed" when we decried Trump in 2016. They were the ones complaining we were overreacting to him being elected again. They were the ones cheering for DOGE while we pointed out how obviously stupid it was.
Now they feel safe to be loud and proud of their ignorance.
"Science work" is NOT doing nothing. All the modern conveniences we have today came through such work, which usually go for long stretches of time before payoff.
You presumably spent 15 or so years in school to learn things of which many only have very indirect applications, and at most a small minority directly applied to your career.
Should we similarly get rid of mandatory education? Most of it is useless after all.
I could only find 4 names:
1 full prof at Vanderbilt with a real research program who has been listed as PI on a bunch of grants. "Top researcher" may be generous, but based on nothing I'd say reasonable description.
The other 3: 1 is a VU Amsterdam PhD who was on a Netherlands Government funded 24-month postdoc in Harvard who's been at VU Amsterdam since 2017. 1 is an adjunct (on leave) prof from Israel who has worked at a few german universities, most recently an Munster (doesn't qualify for the 30% rule). The last resigned over a year ago and has been contracting at a couple UK universities.
This seems less like "Top researchers leave USA" and more like "Typical Academic Bag Chasing"
> I could only find 4 names:
They haven't published the full list of the 34 researchers accepted so far:
> Namen van de 34 bursalen maakt NWO niet bekend, aldus een woordvoerder, omdat de aanstellingsprocedures nog lopen en sommige onderzoekers geen publiciteit willen.
(NRC July 7th, https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/07/07/tulp-fonds-voor-academi...)
So you'll only find the names of those who are now in a position to speak out about this issue.
Its not just what makes the news. There is a cooling effect happening in recruiting international talent.
Science is heavily international, and if people feel like they won't get funding/wont be safe here, they won't come.
I know this is anecdotal, but my engineering graduate program at a well known private university in the NE had roughly 300 graduates, more than half of them on student visas. I feel it's more popular than ever to act as though one has ideals, but there is an endless supply of talent waiting for a spot at these prestigious American universities.
Researchers _would_ leave in droves if they could. But it turns out the entire world doesn't actually care much for research. The US was actually unique in that regard.
That’s not true and uninformed. What even makes you believe this?
Europe has tons of top research universities. Both EU and China are competing with the US [0].
And this news is not an isolated event. The majority of Americans rank US higher education research and innovation as: poor [1]. US top universities are shrinking PhD programs [2.
The thing that makes the US unique is that they are really dropping the ball in a lot of areas, because of bad leadership of the financial and political “elite”.
[0] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/universities/how-eu-researc... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/15/growing-s... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/06/us/research-universities-...
Great initiative, and good to see that it has an effect. I'm a bit sceptical about the available funds. 1 million over 5 years is a nice starting package (4+ PhD students), but the availability of overall research grant money in the Netherlands has been under pressure for years and is difficult to acquire. Researchers moving here may find it difficult to acquire further grant money compared to US, at least in CS.
It'll be on top of any other grants and funding available for research though.
Any how much available funding is there in the EU?
One of the reasons that so many researchers come to the US, even with our decline in research funding over the last 30 years, is because the US makes available so much God damn funding in comparison to any western world. The reason China is starting to outstrip the US? Because they are starting to surpass the US in funding. The only downside I have heard from Chinese scientists is that you tend to get pigeon holed for the rest of your career into things the state wants/needs
Because there is less competition for jobs and grants. Europe spends more on academic research (as a fraction of GDP) than the US, but there are more people competing for the funding.
Are you sure about that? Most people miss the fact that a sizeable % of our military budget is slated for research grants/funding.
I'm a physicist in academia, and the amount of money we have gotten from DoD branches for things that have no immediate military applications is like 40-60% of our budget YoY. Like for straight fundamental physics research.
Most scientists I know who have gone to Europe have had to go into the private sector. And the famous ones I work with have gotten like blank check $10M offers from max planck and directorships with guaranteed $1m/yr funding, and still turned them down.
The US spends less on academic research than the OECD average. See, for example, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/academic-r-d-internatio...
From a European perspective, the most noticeable sign of this is the scarcity of postdocs at American universities. Some fields and individual labs are better funded, but on the average, the universities lean heavily on students doing the actual research.
Because postdocs are basically slavery. The expectation here is that after a top Ph.D. (which tend to be longer than in Europe), you get a real academic job (assistant professor).
You have a few misconceptions.
The actual expectation is that after finishing PhD, you take a journeyman position, where you can practice the skills needed in an academic career and gradually gain independence while being mentored by a senior academic. Then, if you were successful, you get a permanent position. The postdoc path fails, as there is no clear path to a permanent position. The assistant professor path fails, because the funding system requires you to become a manager without sufficient experience.
European PhDs vary in duration. The most common system is 3+2+4 years for bachelor's + master's + PhD, which is not that different from the American 4+5 years for bachelor's + PhD. (Those are nominal durations, and actual studies usually take longer.)
In most European countries, a postdoc is a nice enough middle-class job. If you are interested in an academic career after finishing PhD, you have good chances of getting a postdoc position. The real bottleneck comes after the postdoc stage, as faculty positions are scarce in most European universities.
They are referring specifically to research funding for people employed in academia. The US funds a huge amount of research outside of academia.
A large percentage of the US DoD research budget is going to researchers outside of academia, for example. This includes a lot of relatively pure research with no immediate military application.
As someone in academia, whos group currently gets 60% from primarily AMES and USONR. And I know it's not unique to us.
The more important US vs Europe difference is that in US there's much more funds for the research -> startup -> scaleup stages.
There's plenty of academics doing fundamental research in Europe. But somehow the ball is dropped on turning that research into successful businesses. So eg. uni graduates doing research in EU, then move to US & found a startup there, is sadly a common pattern.
As I understand it, mostly due to funding suppliers (gov, VCs, banks etc) being more risk-averse than in US. Regulation pressure doesn't help either.
The attribution here is that the researcher works for an academic institution. It reflects the reality that the US funds much more research outside of academic institutions than Europe.
That's not a truthful translation of the article's headline, BTW.
More correct would be "First international scientists to the Netherlands via the Tulip Fund", which is a far cry from the title as submitted.
This title is such clickbait. All the article talks about is a Dutch fund created to recruit scientists and they have successfully recruited them. At 1 million euros per head.
They have the first 34 researchers, all from top universities and institutes. That’s a major achievement, because as the article says, every researcher brings new knowledge as well as a whole international network with them.
Exactly; the biggest company in the Netherlands and its products (ASML and high end lithography machines), is built on top of the works of only a handful of researchers. The US nuclear weapons and space programs were similarly built on top of researchers they got from Europe. This is very much NOT a numbers game, and I want to believe top researchers rate their work and the benefit of humanity higher than a country, especially if that country is backsliding.
> the biggest company in the Netherlands and its products (ASML and high end lithography machines), is built on top of the works of only a handful of researchers.
This is... wildly wrong. ASML is a multi-national company that licenses IP largely from USA and Japan, but also Taiwan and Germany. The actual EUV light source is developed and produced in California by Cymer, which ASML acquired in 2013. But ASML was only permitted to acquire the company under a strict technology sharing and export control agreement with the US government. Additionally, a huge portion of the photolithography research is directly developed (and owned) by US companies and research organizations such as IBM, Albany NanoTech, and SEMATECH.
There is a reason why ASML's next-generation research photolithography machine is currently being installed and developed in upstate New York, and not somewhere in the Netherlands. The same reason that Cymer is still in San Diego instead of being relocated to Europe.
[0] https://www.eetimes.com/asml-to-build-400-million-us-researc...
[1] https://www.eetimes.com/asml-sematech-team-on-manufacturing-...
[2] https://research.ibm.com/blog/euv-center-albany-nstc
The laser and optics for the EUV light source are from the US?
The laser is from the US, the optics are German (Zeiss)
Isn't TRUMPF a German company?
OP was slightly mistaken. The laser itself is provided by TRUMPF, a German company. Cymer (USA) integrates that laser with tin droplet, plasma, optical, vacuum, and control technologies to create the complete DUV/EUV light sources.
> There is a reason why ASML's next-generation research photolithography machine is currently being installed and developed in upstate New York, and not somewhere in the Netherlands. The same reason that Cymer is still in San Diego instead of being relocated to Europe.
What is the reason?
Because it's American tech funded by the USA CHIPS Act and the Department of Energy. Tightly controlled by the US government.
> At 1 million euros per head.
Over 5 years...
Which still a great salary and competitive with the US, in academia.
Seems accurate enough to me. That’s not a ton of money to uproot your life over tbh. Shows there’s willingness to leave with a little bit of incentive.
That money is for the research, not salary
Dutch researcher salaries are also pretty high (compared both to median Dutch salaries and academic salaries around the world), so it's still not like you're leaving USA to live in poverty
Yup I wasn’t confused about that.
The US is accidentally conducting Operation Paperclip but in reverse. Who will benefit the most from it, China or Europe ?
China is not very immigration friendly to non-han folks, but I guess chinese researchers won't make it to the US and this already will have a great effect on the chinese economy.
Europe is in its own set of problems and it is not in the same situation that US used to be after WW2 (only major economy not affected by bombing).
Europe's problems:
* active major war in Ukraine (lasting longer than Axis/Soviet war in WW2)
* energy supply issues (unlike US it's not energy sufficient and the places that supply it with energy are involved with wars)
* a wall of people aging away from employment and into doctor's and hospital waiting rooms (forcing less investment into research and roads/bridges/railway, more towards stabilizing pensions, healthcare)
* major pieces of the european export economy are being replaced by China (eg chinese car brands eating the lunch of european car brands).
Europe is not immigration friendly as well if you don't speak the native language, of course one could live in an English speaking bubble, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in Academia.
It's extremely feasible. English is the defacto language of most research in the EU. I spent some time in Italy during my masters degree and know lots of people who have gone on to research or university instructor jobs in various countries in the EU. You definitely have to learn at least some of the local language for day-to-day life though.
Politically speaking, the top polling party in Germany refuses to have a discussion about neo-nazis in its ranks, and boasts that "we are growing stronger and larger all the time":
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rwflha_NkVE
Similar things are going on in the UK (Reform/Restore) and France, where most projections have the National Rally candidate winning the next presidential election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2027_F...
Anti-immigrant sentiments are surging all around the world: Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Switzerland nearly passed an immigration freeze far more draconian than anything Trump ever proposed.
> immigration freeze far more draconian than anything Trump ever proposed
as a swiss i am very happy that we didn't vote this through, but you're still being very hyperbolic. they wanted to put a cap on the population, which is bonkers, don't get me wrong.
however, no jail-like deportation centers, gestapo-like policeforce searching for immigrants and unlawfully putting them into trucks and many more things trump did and wants to do which my mind tries to forget.
there is an issue with people hating immigrants in our country, but please don't suggest that we're on US/Trump level, which to me seems more like what the germans started to do in the beginning* of you know what and who.
*comparing it to the beginning on purpose. not yet on total annihilation mode, but seeing as there's reports of hundreds of people going missing from Alligator Alcatraz, and minding the people who have been shot/killed, y'all are doing a good job of repeating history.
There's a difference between hamfisted/uneven attempts to enforce immigration law which is already on the books, and proposing a total freeze on legal immigration. Trump never did the latter. The US came closer to a total freeze in the 1920s.
The push back is against violent illegal uneducated freeloading immigrants that are flooding Europe. Of course political parties that point out the problem are going to do well. Get rid of economic migrants & freeloaders shopping for welfare, and there will be support for highly educated immigrants.
The white nationalist parties are *far* more of a threat to democracy in Europe than these very scary, adjective-laden immigrants.
Likely not a problem, especially in Academia. A family member is doing a Phd in Poland, everyone is English speaking and they have lots of students from all over the world. Could be worse in places like France, where English proficiency is historically lower, but I doubt it would be a factor in higher education.
Whether China is immigration friendly or not is debatable. However, here's a recent announcement from last week:
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Omar M. Yaghi joins Tsinghua University full-time https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/info/1244/14984.htm
unfortunately people won't see how bad this is.
most of the A.I researchers are already Chinese.
now imagine other talented researchers on their way to earn Nobels - they're already in China & other countries but not visible yet.
this corrupt US administration fxxked the US in ways that will be felt for decades.
It's good for dangerous people to be denied resources. Scientists leaving Germany turned the tide.
edit: I was not suggesting China was the good side; Europe is least dangerous today.
Both sides are dangerous
The keywords in the headline are "Nobel laureate". They are superstars in academia and are getting money, resources and convenience that a tenured US professor cannot dream of. These are extremely rare compared to the number of Chinese professors in US universities.
>Whether China is immigration friendly or not is debatable.
Compared to the US or Europe? No it's not debatable.
No dual citizenship at all, most probably no citizenship. Harder residency. Good luck bringing family there.
Not going to even mention the obscene difference in racism OR the language barrier, both of which are enormous factors.
> Not going to even mention the obscene difference in racism OR the language barrier, both of which are enormous factors.
Language wise, absolutely. Racism-wise, I think you underestimate how wildly racist the US is. As a European, I am still quite shocked. Everything in that country is viewed through the lens of skin color.
Some data suggests that Europe is more racist than the US:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/0...
Easy to find social media anecdotes supporting that position if you want:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/17g68zx/pervasive...
I think the main difference between Europe and the US is that European progressives tend to have a lot of national vanity and believe that their country doesn't have racism, regardless of the evidence. US progressives tend to have national self-hatred (the US is one of the world's most self-hating countries, according to polls) and work really hard to find racism everywhere.
I see the rise of the far right as fundamentally different in Europe and the US. In Europe it's driven by migrants who don't integrate well. In the US, immigrants typically integrate well, and the far right is fundamentally a reaction to our crazy far left: https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/how-crazy-is-darializa-avila... The US far right is worried about immigrants because they believe immigrants will vote for far left candidates, even though the data doesn't exactly support that position.
Ask a European about Roma people. They are far more racist than the Americans.
I am a European. I don't even remember when was the last time I had a conversation about race with someone who isn't American. And with Americans, it was mostly about how I supposedly owe something to other people because my skin is white.
> No dual citizenship at all, most probably no citizenship.
Citizenship is basically impossible unless you are born to Chinese parents, but work visas in China are lightyears easier to get than the US H1B shitshow. In China all you need is an employer's invitation and you can more or less get a work visa, especially if it's for a skilled job in science, technology, or finance.
> Not going to even mention the obscene difference in racism
I'm non-white and I've felt far more racism in the US than China. That isn't to say racism doesn't exist, but it's much less.
> OR the language barrier, both of which are enormous factors.
Language is not a barrier unless you think it is. The IQ of people in China isn't particularly different than the IQ of people anywhere else in the world. If 1 billion people can learn a language, you can.
I doubt many of the researchers migrating even want Chinese citizenship and the chains that come along with it, so why do most people (presumably Americans) keep harping on and on about it?
Once you're invited by the CCP for your exceptional research background, you're literally given an open chequebook for both your personal compensation and your future research endeavors. You're allowed to take your family along with you too, and the language barrier doesn't translate in the professional setting. Racism is a non-issue since I doubt these researchers will even be interacting with elements of that segment of Chinese Han society, unless they choose to.
If you don't have citizenship, you're just an expensive guest worker who can get kicked out at any time.
(This is also true of Europeans in Dubai..)
Technically yes, but the ways US and China treat foreigners are at two extremes.
As long as you are invited and keep your mouth shut about ccp, China does not care about papers. One famous example is an athlete, when questioned about nationality after winning an Olympic gold medal for China, publicly claimed that I am Chinese when I am in China, and American when I am in the US.
>I doubt many of the researchers migrating even want Chinese citizenship and the chains that come along with it, so why do most people (presumably Americans) keep harping on and on about it?
Because it's an important matter regarding immigration. If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?
>Once you're invited by the CCP for your exceptional research background, you're literally given an open chequebook for both your personal compensation and your future research endeavors.
None of which is related to immigration.
>You're allowed to take your family along with you too, and the language barrier doesn't translate in the professional setting. >Racism is a non-issue since I doubt these researchers will even be interacting with elements of that segment of Chinese Han society, unless they choose to.
Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
This just reads like deeply, deeply delusional reasoning attempting to paint China as a good alternative.
Citizenship is quite politicized in the US, but in Asia (and probably most of the world) most immigrants will never obtain citizenship. There are many reasons for this I can get into if you want, but it's a tangent. All this generally entails, as opposed to permanent residency, is that your children won't be citizens by default, you can't vote, and that you need to occasionally notify immigration of where you live. On the other issue - yeah you can 100% not interact with locals if you choose.
Any position that's hiring foreigners is going to have multiple foreigners. And it creates a scenario where, by default, foreigners will hang out with foreigners and locals will hang out with locals. The same is true outside of work as there tend to be large expat communities everywhere and even schools/communities almost entirely for expats.
Immigrants (especially in Asia) are never going to blend in with the local population naturally. The cultures are so far removed that you'll never 'fit in.' That doesn't mean you can't make local friends and acquaintances, but that you can choose not to. And yeah I'd highly recommend almost anywhere in Asia to people, including China. It's an amazing place to raise children - ironic given Asia's at the forefront of the global fertility crisis.
It's nothing what like you probably imagine if you've never been. You can find about a zillion videos of people vlogging about their life in Asia. Here [1] is some random video from an American in China. Granted, he speaks crazy good Chinese so it's a different perspective than the one I'm talking about, but he can hit on more issues re:China. I've visited China, but never lived there. He's been there 16 years.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqVlKItJYnk
> paint China as a good alternative.
I don't think OP is doing this, just stating the obvious. The invitation implies $$$ but not naturalization.
> If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?
Yeah might, so it is big question depending on the situation, and even bigger once you got more passports or permanent residence. For example people intentionally avoid US permanent residence or citizenship for global taxation.
> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
All the time, especially the US expats in China. They tend to live in nice communities for foreigners in a few tier-1 cities, they go to western style international hospitals and their kids goes to fancy international schools. Basically employers have everything prepared nicely for them, hence the contrast of China between foreigners and citizens.
In terms of racism in China or east Asia as a whole, there is practically no problem for white ppl, small problem for indians, big problem for blacks.
In the reverse direction in the US there are Chinese/Latino spending their lives in their own ethnic community without speaking English at all, it is not that uncommon, just invisible.
Have you ever lived overseas? Honestly you sound delusional. Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen? Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place. Acting like the bar for living somewhere is citizenship is nuts.
> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?
This pretty much confirms you have never lived overseas lol. Anyone who has will have met many people that achieve this. Like living anywhere immersing yourself in your surroundings (w/e that means to you) takes extra effort. Most people go overseas to work. It's not playtime. With that comes a built in community.
> None of which is related to immigration
How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?
Why are you so reactive about something you clearly know nothing about? Because China bad?
I have lived abroad, yes. Does the USA make it easy to become a citizen? If the comparison is China, yes, a thousand times yes. Does language and society matter a truckload? Absolutely.
>Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place.
Yes. Does China treat immigrants better than the US? As I explained, no. There is no contest. The comparison borders on the absurd. The US is a remarkably flawed country in many aspects, but the vast majority of the stigma around its immigration comes from the fact that it's a matter that the US takes very, very seriously. The bar for living somewhere is not necessarily citizenship but it absolutely is a factor if someone is seriously planning to immigrate somewhere.
For an incredibly evident and very current example, the 14th amendment was very recently reaffirmed, with a whole lot of people being horrified it was even thrown into question at all.
>How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?
Because any quantity of money beyond a livable wage has barely any relation to integrating people into a culture. A model of immigration based on money is not immigration at all, that's just hiring foreign workers.
You clearly have a certain cultural fixation with immigration that frankly is pretty narrow and seems of a particular American variety.
How is the condition of foreign workers not a question of immigration? What distinction are you making? Is your logic the United States treats immigrants well because any foreign national treated under a subpar regime you get to reclassify as a "foreign worker"?
You know not all "foreign workers" are treated the same right? This applies to almost all countries. Plenty of people are happy to go to a place and work. Not everyone who goes to a place wants to or plans to become part of that culture. Or would expect to fully integrate. It is a balance. The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.
Where did you live overseas? For how long? Did you consider it "immigration"? What were the terms of your status re work? Did you become a citizen?
I just don't really buy it. For someone who lived overseas the narrowness of your perspective is rather alarming.
Not the person you're responding to, but I've spent almost 2 decades outside the US.
Sorry, his perspective matches my experience much more than yours.
Why would you apologize for that? Name one claim I've made that is impeached by your "experience"?
Doubtless many others have shared your experiences. Good for you. It's not really the point. My questions as to the OP I was responding to of a personal nature were quite obviously rhetorical. The point was to perhaps suggest some introspection. Not everyone's experiences are the same.
The more substantive questions have still not been answered. Oh well, I'm not owed anything.
But the fact you doubled down with a "me too" shows you also missed the point. I can supply you with people who have the opposite experience. Will you suddenly have a different view?
How have you spent two decades out of the US and found yourself so self assured? In your two decades did you not come across thousands with different experiences than you? Why would this give you such a high opinion of your own?
> Doubtless many others have shared your experiences. Good for you. It's not really the point.
You have made multiple statements questioning his reality:
> I just don't really buy it. For someone who lived overseas the narrowness of your perspective is rather alarming.
> Have you ever lived overseas? Honestly you sound delusional.
> This pretty much confirms you have never lived overseas lol.
I'm pointing out that his reality matches my reality living overseas.
Fair enough. To be clear, these were made mostly in jest, in response to similarly assertive language made by the OP, which I guess you identified with. I certainly may be overly optimistic about Americans going overseas and learning some humility. But it's not like this is the first time I've been disappointed in this manner. Oh well.
I'm still curious if the OP acknowledges that some countries may make it easier to be a "foreign worker" vs a "citizen" and whether that has any value. I don't take these debates personally. I think the question of foreign worker vs immigrant could be an interesting one. Have a nice day!
>The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.
Can you name a single country in the EU which offers birthright citizenship? Any country in Asia?
Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?
I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Please read more carefully next time. Or if you think the reaffirmation was itself impressive, please just say so.
>Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, exactly. The US is not the only country which offers birthright citizenship. But I don't believe there are any other countries like this in Europe or Asia.
>I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Learn to read.
The OP brought up the 14th in the context of the country's stance towards immigrants. From this POV, I don't see why you would give undue weight to the reaffirmation compared with the "the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself".
You can have the last word in this thread. Your incivility to clarity ratio is way too high for me to wish to continue further with you.
It's not about the last word. Just make a decent argument. There's nothing personal here. I actually hope to be corrected. That would be interesting. I don't hold anything against you.
As to your actual question, the reason is because they brought up the reaffirmation. Those were their words. As such, I gave it weight because they did - that was the point I was responding to.
As to the first part of your reply, I think it's very interesting actually. Birthright citizenship may not be exclusive to the United States, but it is relatively uncommon. The unique history of the United States plays a big part in this. This also does not automatically mean that the United States is a better place for immigrants today. One counterpoint is how it makes many of the debates around American immigration have a distinctly racial or cultural nature as nativist elements of the population want to find ways to control who can be born here. Of course it's not like those debates don't also happen elsewhere. No place is perfect.
I'm just pushing back against the self satisfaction of the OP I was replying to. These things are nuanced. I apologize if in my zeal to pushback I made you upset. Have a good day.
> Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen?
Just because there are plenty of countries that make it easier to become a citizen doesn't mean there aren't plenty of countries that make it worse.
People going the H-1/O-1 route in a STEM field with an MS degree don't have a hard time becoming a citizen, unless they're Indian (and a little bit if Chinese). Literally everyone I know from my university and work days who went that route got it. A few got audited along the way, which added 1-2 years to the process, but they all still got it.
Now compare that with many friends of mine who left the US for ideological reasons and moved to countries where ... they have no hope for permanent residency, let alone citizenship. I just recently visited one of them - he has been in that country for 18 years, and is about to be kicked out because the economy is poor and they likely won't renew his residency status. For all those years, he never had a path to permanent residency (without paying a huge amount of money).
Another is a faculty member at a good university in the country he's in. He's surrounded by people who've spent their whole careers at that university and are now wondering where they'll move to post-retirement.
Yet another has spent almost two decades in a third country. He likes it, but admits the pressure to never lose a job and always find a stable one so he doesn't get kicked out does get to him sometimes.
> China is not very immigration friendly to non-han folks
What do you mean? I've never been to China, but know quite a few non-han white Europeans who lived there for both shorter and longer periods of time. Some studied, others worked there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China has a good summary (click through to its sources); as of 2020 there were about 1.5 million immigrants in China, just under 600K of which from Hong Kong/Macao/Taiwan; as of 2023 there's 12.000 people with permanent residency cards, which would be the expats that live and work there without nationalizing.
For comparsion, in the US as of 2023, nearly 48 million inhabitants (14.3% of total) are foreign-born (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...). Or the Netherlands, 4.4 million of its ~18 million inhabitants are from abroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherland...).
> For comparsion, in the US as of 2023, nearly 48 million inhabitants (14.3% of total) are foreign-born (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...). Or the Netherlands, 4.4 million of its ~18 million inhabitants are from abroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherland...).
The relative population size of those countries likely plays a role there. Split China into 4 countries, each with a population about equal to that of the USA, and I bet that number for China goes up significantly. Split it into 75 countries each the size of the Netherlands, and it would go up even further (some people moving home within Beijing would emigrate)
In total, China has roughly the same amount of immigrants as Ireland.
China is also objectively becoming more closed, not more open.
100% becoming more closed. I have been trying to live in China for over 15 years… I finally managed the last 3 years, but its an forever struggle/gamble each year and each year the requirements get tougher (to get a work/residence permit). But yeah.. same goes for Europe
The amount of skilled immigrants, researchers and engineers, matters for this comparison.
Not just the total amount including random people arriving at the coast.
No, total immigration matters. Human progress is always subject to the law large numbers.
Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
China is the opposite of that. You are hard hammered into the Han-ness, immediately. The language, the writing (which is a HUGE hurdle), the food, the way of life.
> American melting pot
For what it's worth, this is the terminology I learned in school decades ago, but I don't think it's preferred anymore. My daughter has a book that calls it a "salad" instead (mixed but retaining their respective properties). I'm probably just old and crotchety but I like that way less.
Maybe. One thing to like about the "melting pot" analogy is that people from one culture exposed to a different dominant culture don't just retain their distinct character as if it was like the pieces of carrot in a salad, they are altered by this experience.
Chicken Tikka Masala didn't exist in India. And if you went to any British restaurant in 1900 they wouldn't serve this dish either. But in a British Indian restaurant today it's a staple because at some point (when and by who is debated) somebody in one of those restaurants was like "We should make a sauce to match local tastes" and it was created.
I think the sweet spot is somewhere in between. You want enough of a melting pot that everyone gets plenty of exposure to the mainstream culture, but enough of a salad bowl that they can "take a break" and relax in the culture they are familiar with.
>No, total immigration matters. Human progress is always subject to the law large numbers.
Human change can be subject to the law of large numbers, but nothing necessitates any particular change being towards progress.
>Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
>The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity
That's a bit of an oversimplification. They were British colonies for well over 100 years before declaring independence. The US Census website states:
"Not surprisingly, the first census reported that based on the names of heads of families, more than 90% of the White population in 1790 hailed from British stock: English (83.5%), Scottish (6.7%) and Irish (1.6%)."
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/12/boston-tea-pa...
>And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
Not many European colonial powers purchased land from natives the way the US did. For example, considering the Louisiana Purchase area, the US paid over 20x as much to natives living in that area as the US paid to France:
https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/201...
The US looks bad compared with a hypothetical (nonexistent) perfect country. But compared with European powers, it looks pretty good.
> Human change can be subject to the law of large numbers, but nothing necessitates any particular change being towards progress.
The same can be said of the "Great Man Theory" (or its adaptation by selecting immigrants based on some selected set of skills). You don't know that you're making society better, you're just selecting for a certain set of skills.
> The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
This isn't true and it ignores the cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin). That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
>This isn't true and it ignores the cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin).
You got it backwards. This is BASED on the "cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin)". That was what made the place have no "prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia".
>That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
Those would be relevant for explaining the "American melting pot", if the latter wasn't established after erasing both their culture and, to a large degree, them.
> Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well.
I feel like a lot of Americans disagree on these nowadays though, no? Source: just look at recent campaigns and elections.
In America there's a very sharp geographical distinction between which people oppose the melting pot and which see it as a core part of the American experience.
People from the big immigrant cities like NYC, SF, LA are more likely to hold the latter position.
People can feel how they want to feel, campaigns are run on feelings and not facts. Just because Trump says Haitians are eating cats and dogs doesn't make it true.
The Mormons of Utah, the Cajun/French of Louisiana, the Norwegians in the Dakotas, the Scotch Irish of everywhere, and the Amish are all (non-brown) examples of enclaves existing in the US. Nobody says that they are not assimilating well. We let them live their lives because personal liberty used to be a thing here.
A large number of those people are only a few generations removed from immigrant ancestors.
This is a hugely loaded statement, but that aside, China is not open to immigrants, that was the original thesis and that hasn't been disproven yet.
Likewise you haven't disproven my thesis that China is not closed to immigrants.
A good friend of mine (white European) was approached by a Chinese company and now works in China. I'll ask him how hard the paperwork was the next time I meet him, but I have a feeling his employer did the bulk of it.
That's fine, since nobody attempted to disprove that in the first place.
The idea that they're at a disadvantage to Ireland in that aspect because the latter has more numbers-wise was what was addressed.
They might very well not be open. Or they might be open in a selective and cautious way, which would be more prudent than merely being open for all.
I've never been to China either. It's a huge country and it probably depends on where you are (hong kong probably friendlier than a random place in the mainland), but from what I heard/read:
* language issues. Many chinese don't speak english. Also a problem in many european countries (esp latin and slavic speaking ones), but at least the european languages are easier to learn. Compare this to Amsterdam, Goteborg, Berlin-Mitte or Kopenhagen where everyone speaks english.
* citizenship is one of the hardest to get in the world.
* I heard complaints about onboarding into the chinese app/digital ID ecosystem.
On HK you can get permanent residence after I believe 5 years of working in there. That said… you will need a HIGH paying job to be able to achieve that. China mainland has a similar thing (‘green card’) but the requirements are kinda unobtainable for anyone below CEO of Starbucks level
Tangent, but I’m really curious what country you’re from that uses the endonym for Göteborg but then also spells the capital of Denmark like Kopenhagen?
I'm born and raised German, and above I mostly used the German ways of writing the town names (stripping the umlaut). Which as it turns out are not the same way you'd write it in english, interesting!
I'm pretty certain all languages do that. It's fairly common to bastardize/assimilate the names of important cities and/or trade hubs into the local language, but leave smaller names unchanged. That's why it's Milano/Milan, Venezia/Venice but Cagliari doesn't have an americanized name; that's why it's Moskva/Moscow but still Irkutsk; Warszawa/Warsaw, Gdansk/Danzig (in German), Katowice/Kattowitz (in German), etc.
Though it was years ago now, I did spend a couple of years frequently traveling to China for fairly long stays. I learned enough Mandarin to get by on my own. The "scariest" thing is realizing you might have to walk for an hour in a random direction to come across a landmark like a known metro station or a hotel where you can get a taxi and have the concierge translate your desired destination.
I was mostly in first tier cities, though I did travel through some more obscure places. The worst hostility I experienced was 5 foot tall grandma with sharp elbows determined to cut in line in front of the big stupid foreigner who is passive aggressively placing his wheelie bag in her way.
If you're curious, just go. The cities are amazing, the people are friendly. Even in Beijing you can easily avoid the tourist traps. While it's not as perfectly safe as Japan or Taiwan, I spent a lot of jet lag recovery time wandering the streets late at night. Once I spent half an hour in a taxi garage at 2am at some unknown location after a 45 minute misdirected taxi ride, arranging a ride to my intended hotel. I think that's about as lost as one can get and it was fine.
I think the concern is more along the lines of social integration than criminal hostility. Japan for instance has basically zero crime, and tons of tourists, but is notoriously impossible to ever become "Japanese" as an outsider.
I have to wonder who aspires to become Japanese or Chinese, or even the superficially plausible goal of me becoming German. It just wouldn't enter my mind.
As for social integration, the Chinese people I met seemed astonished and pleased that I could make any headway with the language or the food.
> Europe's problems: [...]
Would it be silly to add "general lack of air conditioning" to that list? I imagine at some point it inevitably stops being a joke and starts being a real problem. Have we reached that point yet? [1] [2]
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-frances-june-heatwave...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/heat-wave-european-countries-report-37...
Europe is lacking AC because we never had to deal with 30°C at night before the last 5-10 years. And for the regions where we needed to (like, around the Mediterranean), guess what, AC is everywhere there.
You know what, me, an European, just received this morning ? The AC unit I ordered.
It's not hard to install AC in Europe, it's just that until a few years ago, we never needed it. The only real blocker today is when you are living in an apartment and the condominium council refuses AC installation for esthetical reasons, but it's something that can change (either by the vote of co-owners, or by law if needed). And if you are renting, you are stuck until the legislation changes and forces owners to provide summer comfort the same way they must provide heating in winter.
>It's not hard to install AC in Europe
Its orders of magnitude harder. When I lived in the USA, I could just pick up a $200 window unit and have it installed within minutes. Every single person had air conditioning. Now I live in Finland where the windows are the worst designed windows I've ever seen. They are thin, tall windows that open vertically on hinges like doors. So rain gets in, and its impossible to install a window AC or even a box fan. You're forced to either install a mini split ($1000+) or central air. And neither options are available for renters. Really, the #1 priority should be trying to bring American style sliding windows to Europe. Then everything else can fall into place downstream of that.
That's exactly what I wrote though. You CAN install a normal split. You are blocked because as a renter you don't have the power to.
My point is that we are not in an AC crisis, we just need to change the laws so that owners are forced to provide, however they want, summer comfort in the same way they must provide winter comfort.
Unlike energy autonomy, green transition, or defense issues, the "AC issue" is actually easy to tackle for governments and I'm betting it will happen pretty soon because that's an easy win that costs nothing to governments and governments loves popular measures that cost nothing and and give them the good role.
> You are blocked because as a renter you don't have the power to.
And his point is that in most apartments in the US, you are not blocked because you're a renter.
>you are not blocked because you're a renter.
You are wrong. Nothing in the US stops a landlord from preventing you from installing an AC and plenty do, for any reason they want.
My previous US apartment banned window mount air conditioners. I was stuck with a "mobile" AC unit that could barely handle a little humidity. Even someone in a "Historic" property in Europe that isn't allowed to touch anything would have that option as well.
> You are wrong. Nothing in the US stops a landlord from preventing you from installing an AC and plenty do, for any reason they want.
In my state, they cannot. I legally have the right to install a window AC unit as long as I'm not doing any damage or violating a safety guideline.
I just moved to Portugal and had zero issues installing a portable unit to help me survive the heatwave. For the hinged windows you just grab an installation kit that works with them and you're good to go. The only problem is that the portable AC I got is not a window unit (& it's single-hose), but I wanted to have it before the heatwave started and don't care too much about few percentage points in lost efficiency as long as it keeps me and my pets alive. Total cost was €320 with the installation kit for a 12000BTU unit.
I'm actually surprised you were fine with single-hose. I've never seen a single-hose portable A/C unit that did an adequate job. AIUC, the laws of physics make that rather difficult. In fact I've sometimes seen them actively make things worse. Whereas I have seen dual-hose do an adequate job.
Also note, "survive" is a rather low bar. We're talking about encouraging some of the world's top researchers to move from the US across the ocean. I'm admittedly not in their shoes, but I imagine mere survival isn't their criterion.
I had single-hose both when I lived in USA and now, and didn't have any issues with it cooling down the room I wanted to have cooled down. My bar is "survival of my pets" because rabbits supposedly can't handle more than 25C. Their room stayed well below that temperature both in USA (Seattle suburbs, west-facing in a house that wasn't insulated) and now in Portugal.
Ive seen a few single hose AC units that worked okay. I still don't understand why they exist though. The window installment at its minimum span is still putting the ends quite far apart and would increase efficiency.
Unfortunately, I could not find a dual-hose unit off-the-shelf in any of the local stores and didn't have any hopes of getting it in time if I ordered it online.
Can sliding windows be properly insulated? In general cold is a bigger deal in Europe than warmth, and will continue to be so.
German style tilting windows close as tightly as the regular (or door-like as you say) do. UK has windows sliding up, but is also famous for being drafty as the windows are never tight. I suppose good sliding windows can exist though?
I have myself pondered the problem with regular windows and a movable AC. My apartment has old school 4-pane windows with 2 layers both having their own window handles, so 8 independent small windows for each opening. They do look great in an old building but I don't see any reasonable way to set up AC with these. Thankfully no need yet as the apartment has never reached 30C inside, but we'll see what the future brings.
> Can sliding windows be properly insulated?
Yes. Beyond that, if they didn't work they wouldn't be used. Continental climates get much colder than pretty much anywhere in Europe, outside of a select few areas.
> In general cold is a bigger deal in Europe than warmth, and will continue to be so.
Masonry is a bad match for cold. The structure acts as a high velocity heat conduit and the earth eats all the heat you produce. Europe's winters (in general) are extremely mild, arguably even more so than its summers.
> Yes. Beyond that, if they didn't work they wouldn't be used.
My usual experience from London was extremely leaky single pane sliding windows, that's why the question. To be fair, that air flow was probably the only saving grace against mold in those buildings.
The old sliding windows were shit, but the modern ones are pretty good.
My house in the US has windows like that. I have a cut and painted board to replace the window with in the summer because of it. I hate these windows because of that though.
You can just buy plastic that you attach to the frame around the window with a hole for the hose. Its reasonable air tight, but we typically get air from outside for ventilation anyway.
Sliding windows are terrible though. Why would you want those?
No they're not. They're actually the best window form factor. Why would you not want them.
You can't clean them without leaning dangerously outside for one.
Modern ones allow you to tilt them in for cleaning. This video demonstrates it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyM7hI5vE2A
The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point. As everything that comes out of republicans these days it's misdirected and purely politically motivated. And it's none of their business anyway. They're just trying to stir up extreme-right sentiment here.
Yes many houses don't have AC. We didn't need it so much until climate change (of which the US is one of the largest contributors no less). But if you move here and care about it just pick a place that has it or where you can install it. It's available if you want it.
It's not a big thing that should be influencing any decision to move. It's just being blown up and politicised because of the current heatwave. Aircon is not prohibited nor frowned upon here, it's just that we didn't really need it so much before and people are still reluctant to invest in it. Especially in the more northern countries it's not really needed anyway, during a heatwave yes but that's a couple weeks a year. Also, it's not a complete solution. Most of us here live outdoor much more, we don't drive cars much so we need to deal with the heat outside anyway.
We also have nice community options like climate shelters here.
> The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point.
I think the truth is somewhere inbetween the extremes. My understanding is that while air conditioning is not legally banned in Europe, its usage and installation are heavily restricted. Strict building codes, energy-saving laws, and local aesthetic regulations in historic districts often make acquiring or running an AC unit highly complicated.
So the talking point is about red tape.
> is just a stupid republican talking point
> As everything that comes out of republicans
It's an old bit of banter that the world over has thrown at certain European countries (including other European countries). Giving American republicans custody of it because of an explosive penetration into the mainstream in the last few weeks is ridiculous.
I would highly recommend not legitimizing the American political system so readily.
>purely politically motivated
I'm certain you yourself are completely free of political motivations ;-)
...what are you talking about? This was from my personal experience being in Europe many times, including in the middle of this very last heat wave. This one thing made it miserable. I couldn't even sleep and had to move to other buildings more than once. On more than one occasion locals themselves told me there were legal reasons certain buildings couldn't have A/C, despite them wanting to install it. And it from people there that I heard - several times - about the deaths when I complained about the lack of A/C, not from right-wing US media! I had no idea Republicans were even talking about this until your comment!
I'm not even blaming Europe for having so little A/C - more power to them for being able to handle the heat with less impact on climate change; they have my approval! I'm just saying if you're expecting Americans to immigrate there, this seems like a very real obstacle. That's all.
Maybe monumental buildings might have some regulatory concern but where I live it's not an issue. My neighbours in the same flat have 2 big condensers (the outside box of a split AC box) on their balcony. I just don't want to invest in it myself so I have only one of those stupid porta units, not great but it does the job when I need to cool down a bit. And our building is monumental from the 1800s. Also, every single hotel and commercial place has it.
But really in the netherlands which this article is about it should not be a barrier. The weather there in summer is extremely variable. Yes you get some hot days but they are few. And like I said, if you really want AC you are free to pick a place that has it. If you're a skilled migrant you will be well compensated anyway. You will have your pick. Viewing that as a barrier is just blowing things out of proportion.
The same way that American media is these days talking about Europe like it's overrun with migrants, it's just political.
> Maybe monumental buildings might have some regulatory concern
No it was not "monumental buildings". These were very average buildings I'm talking about. In fact I saw two related buildings, only one of which was permitted to have A/C (and an awful portable one at that), as the locals told me. Everyone complained about it.
Be glad where you live isn't like this, but this is not universal.
> Also, every single hotel and commercial place has it.
I can't speak for your city or the Netherlands but this is absolutely not even remotely true universally in Europe. Most places I found (yes that includes nice hotels, yes in multiple countries) lacked A/C, and even the ones that had something they called "air conditioning" on the booking websites vehemently rejected the notion that they have A/C when you asked them in person -- in their own eyes it wasn't proper A/C, and I agreed with them after trying it.
Source: my own eyes, up to last week.
Republicans aren't talking about it, people are making fun of Europe on X for their lack of AC, and how regulations are whats keeping them from having AC. This is coming from right wing Europeans. I think the parent is tilting at windmills.
That's literally what I heard from locals. I have no idea what 'wing' they were; they were just random locals I was asking about A/C. What I do know is everything I observed was consistent. Are you saying I should discredit all that based on an HN comment smearing them as "right-wing"?
I believe you dataflow. I am saying wolvoleo is tilting at windmills. Maybe a republican mentioned it, but it was a popular topic on X (formerly twitter). Which tends to cause a weird counter reaction on bluesky. Europeans are complaining about it, and then its causing this strange split where some are saying AC is racist/destroying the world, and others are saying AC is good and we need it and the european regulations keeping them from AC is bad.
It's coming from all over. It always has. It was understandably never so visible for people who don't hang out in casual international spaces, but it's not new and it's not owned by anyone. The reason it's so compelling isn't actually the lack of AC, it's because it's an easy button to push that gets people living in certain countries very defensive over something rather trivial.
I mean the lack of AC is definitely weird for a developed country, and the deflections about mild climate certainly aren't a posteriori, but it's the defensiveness and cope that makes it a button worth pushing in the first place.
Well I am very anti-right-wing yes but I saw one of the top dogs in the US administration complain about this recently, I think it was Vance or Hegseth.
> The finger-pointing by the US about lack of aircon in europe is just a stupid republican talking point.
No, it isn't. It's appalling, that a Philippino riverside shack that's on the verge of falling apart has functioning A/C while a high end home in pick-a-European-country does not. It's a cultural thing. Even now during a brutal heatwave, when I mention to friends in Europe, that things would be better if they had aircon at home, they start talking about planting trees and other "measures". Sometimes I wonder if they know how long does it take for a tree to grow.
That's pretty regional, countries that historically had warmer summers have them available on basically every house.
Where the heatwave is only recent, there are some bureaucratic issues (like historic buildings should not get "defaced" by the external unit and whatnot), but I think this is way too exaggerated when talking about the whole of the EU.
You forgot, amomg others, increasingly non-white popation due to laughable immigration policies; absurd environmental policies that result in high energy prices; red tape and high taxes in every aspect of life.
> Europe is in its own set of problems and it is not in the same situation that US used to be after WW2 (only major economy not affected by bombing).
Both Japan and South Korea were equally devastated and yet they managed to build world-class technology industries in the subsequent decades. I think the problems with Europe and the EU are a lot deeper than that.
A lot deeper than active wars and energy supply issues???
Europe's economy has been slowing down since 2007, which is the peak of conventional oil. The problem of Europe is that is doesn't have access to abundant energy like the US does. The US likes to think that they have a better economy because they are smarter/work harder, but the reality is simple: abundant energy makes the economy.
If you measure economical performance with PIB per capita, yeah, for sure, US has a better economy.
If you measure with anything else useful like (healthy) life expectancy or happiness level, state of the democracy, etc... like if you think the the economy must serve the people and not the other way, I'd say Europe is way more successful despite the real issues.
Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
>Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy.
You feel that way because the media (and the internet) is hyper focused on the bottom 50% of Americans. The households with 2 people earning <$40k per year each.
If you look at the higher brackets (you have to look because "Americans in the 75th percentile live great" is not a clickable story) America is a better place to live if you work a job that pays well.
The plots for "comfortable living vs income" in the US and Europe are different, and that difference is endlessly arbitraged and any boring news day to pump out another "Life in Europe is better" story.
Sorry but I don't share your view. A society where the bottom 50% can't live a decent life is just dysfunctional. I don't care which country is best for the riches (and actually, Europe is good for the riches), I care that the economy is there to allow everyone to live a decent and meaningful life.
The issue is that "decent life" is a benchmark that (besides being subjective) is set relatively rather than absolutely.
So being in the bottom 50% in the US sucks when you look around your country, but is actually pretty "decent" when you look around your planet.
This perspective implies that you should be vigilant to keep out poor or unskilled immigrants who might struggle to afford the quality of life you require for citizens.
>You feel that way because the media (and the internet) is hyper focused on the bottom 50% of Americans. The households with 2 people earning <$40k per year each.
Poverty in the US is similar to poverty in Sweden, according to this dataset:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/poverty-share-on-less-tha...
But the median American earns far higher wages than the median Swede:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income
I think there is just a lot of misinformation out there. Americans love to complain, and other countries love to criticize the US. These effects create systematic misconceptions which no one bothers to fact-check.
I mean the real unspeakeable secret is how the American mid-high-middle-class/upper-class has so effectively turned financially transparent despite being the wealthiest group in the country. The 65% to 99% are just an absolute hulking bag of cash.
The battle in the US is between the mid-low-middle-class/lower-class and the 1%. Which is just so incredibly effective at diverting attention from where all the actual money is. When you can pull your head out of the swamp of social media and fountains of clickbait/class ragebait, there is this huge elephant sitting in the room with it's finger over it's mouth doing the "shhh, be quiet" motion.
https://xcancel.com/cafreiman/status/2074453764761641240
>Actually, I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
Norway produces oil at Saudi Arabia levels per capita:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-prod-per-capita?count...
The US has about 70x the population of Norway, hence far lower per-capita production.
> I'm baffled at how US performs poorly for their people given they have abundant energy. Norway and Iceland also have abundant energy and their people are seeing the benefits.
It's just a totally different scale of comparison that does not work - those Nordic countries are smaller than many counties in US states. It's like comparing Iceland to Santa Barbara, etc.
The problem Europe has is an allergy to people making money. Oil prices aren't what drove every Euro tech worker to San Francisco for 25 years.
Since 2007, the European economy is in contraction if you look at physical indicators like "how much stuff do trucks move" or "what area is being built". That correlates directly with the peak of conventional oil and the fact that oil has been harder to get in Europe since 2007.
>The US likes to think that they have a better economy because they are smarter/work harder, but the reality is simple: abundant energy makes the economy.
The most valuable American companies are not exactly in energy-intensive industries:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/
Everything depends on energy. Driving a car is a lot cheaper in the US because of abundant energy. That has an impact on the economy (the economy is pretty much trucks moving stuff around).
If have a hard time linking a slowdown from 2007 on to oil instead of the GFC.
I don't understand that sentence.
GFC = Great Financial Crisis. I'd look at that first rather than some peak oil for Europe's underperformance.
Is "GFC" the subprimes crisis? Because that one, in 2008, may well be a consequence of the peak of conventional oil. It's not "some peak for Europe", it is THE peak for the world of, well, conventional oil, which means anything that is not the shale oil in North America.
It started in 2007. I don't see the peak oil connection there - what is it?
Peak oil means that oil becomes harder to get. That's the definition of the peak: the production increases until the peak, and decreases after. When the economy is directly correlated to oil, it means that a decrease in oil results in the economy slowing down.
> I don't see the peak oil connection there - what is it?
We got an economical crisis right when we reached peak oil production. Again, there is an extremely clear correlation between oil production and the economy.
Since 2007, the US has had access to shale oil and the likes, so they haven't reached their peak yet. Europe, on the other hand, has reached their peak in 2007. And since then, the economy (if you look at physical indicators, not artificial proxies like the GDP) is slowing down. Again an extremely clear correlation.
The world runs on Siemens, Bosch, Rolls Royce, Bayer. Even adversarial countries buy German Marine Diesels for their warships. Europe makes better warships than the US, who has spent the last 40 years twiddling it's thumbs and can no longer make modern frigates apparently, and prefers to spend it's naval efforts on the Tsar's moronic toy boat.
Unilever makes up half of the non-food items in your grocery store. Nestle makes up half the food items.
Novartis played a huge part in the Covid vaccines and also is just a giant medicine company in general. Novo Nordisk should be familiar to you.
ThyssenKrupp. It's twice the size of US Steel, which recently had to be sold to a US subsidiary of Nippon Steel because they sucked ass at keeping up with the times.
Britain makes better gas turbines than China and Russia for example. Europe reliably produces top tier weapons systems and infrastructure, competitive with American, often surpassing American systems currently. Thales, BAE, Airbus, Saab, Rheinmetal. The US Abrams tank uses a clone of a German gun. The Bradley is a BAE design. The US has always loved using European produced and designed large guns, such as from Oerlikon or Bofors, because they are always world class. Most of their military industry is.
Michelin tyres is a french company.
A lot of these names survived WW2. Thinking Europe doesn't know how to build big stuff, important stuff, etc, they seem to do a better job than the US at maintaining essential industry talent and continuation of industry. By value and jobs, the automotive industry facing competition will struggle, but Europe survived the rise of Japanese automakers far far better than US automakers did, primarily because they didn't just sit back and twiddle their thumbs for decades as the rest of the world advanced. Well, okay, Britain automakers struggled, but that's a good thing.
There are any number of smaller region/states that are already benefiting. Singapore comes to mind. Leading labs are all setting up in Singapore and both 1) internally-transferring their previously US-based talents on work visa to Singapore, and 2) using Singapore as a base for Asia hires, mostly notably from China.
Probably Europe. Seems more attractive for researchers. China is probably too different to be attractive for most Americans.
It's not too different for ethnic Chinese researchers, of which there are a lot in American STEM departments.
For a lot of people it's easier to learn English than Chinese - you wouldn't get far if you don't speak the language in China. English gets you very far in Europe though, most research institutions, universities, high end professions, etc already have English as the going language because of the international character of these places.
I think you're missing my point. China does not need to or aim to attract any researcher from anywhere. Just attracting top tier ethnic Chinese researchers and technical talent from the US is already a big unequivocal win for them. That talent pool is big: any US Math/Physics Olympiad team of the past 10-20 years is >2/3rds ethnically Chinese. And for them, Europe is not necessarily a more attractive destination than China.
Chinese are far more open to working in foreign environments/contexts that Americans are, IMO. Just look at the foreign language learning statistics: most Americans tend to only know English, unless their family was fairly recently from a non-English speaking country. Meanwhile the Chinese landing in the US tend to already have decent English education, and dive right into doing what they're there to do.
Given that English is a global lingua franca this hardly seems like a useful comparison.
Even if not a single researcher goes from the US to China, it may still benefit them
Not sure if accidentally is the correct term, given the anti-intellectual platform
Is it an accident though? This seems very deliberate
Maybe the current administration underestimates the impact of public research, and thinks Silicon Valley appeared out of nowhere.
Either they underestimate, which is ignorance, or they estimate properly and are anti-truth.
What use do propagandists and fascists have for research? It only stands to continually disprove their lies. They obviously hate science and truth and want it gone, to be replaced with cult of personality and Christian nationalism.
I apologise if this is overly negative. It is based on my experience working as a soft money researcher (my own grants) at a Dutch university. My opinions may not be shared.
In my experience The Netherlands is a rather unsupportive place to do research. There is essentially no money from the government that will pay salaries in full, especially early career salaries (vini, vidi, vici). I have had friends win ERC grants (millions in euros) that were fired as a result because there was not a space in the department to hire them full time (Dutch work law requires contracts to become permanent after a certain number of years of working). Departments also seem to have glass ceilings for non Dutch. Researchers are often given large teaching commitments that cannot be bought out with grants. University incubators seem to be better suited to let professors pretend to be start up founders then actual innovation centers. I have tried on multiple occasions to engage the local incubator and have always been run around. Yet local Dutch have no issues. The rules seem to be different for Dutch than for foreigners. A foreign colleague was offered a lucrative consulting contract (a normal thing for successful professors at other universities). The Dutch university he was at refused to let him take it except under the understanding the money would be entirely consumed by the university and he would receive no compensation for bringing in private money even though he would be doing all of the work. Meanwhile the Dutch colleague in the next office was allowed to start a private consulting agency through the local incubator and spend as much time as he wanted working in the start up. The universities publish reports how progressive they are by evaluating professors on teaching and outreach meanwhile having internal department expectations of PhD students to publish at least four first author papers or are not allowed to graduate (on four year contracts with one year full time teaching commitment). In my experience it is rare that PhD students finish on time. As one adminstrator told me, “university promoters are more interested in promoting their careers then their PhD students” (promoter is the word used for the adviser). The universities also disallow working outside of typical hours and there is no ability to work in your own office on the weekends. Also, recently they defended against this, but it will come up again, the government has discussed changing the tax law such that startup shares will have real world value so new valuations become taxable events.
This all is not atypical to universities world wide. But in the Netherlands I have not found a place that made me feel like I could work to the best of my ability and at the cutting edge. This is unfortunate. It’s nice to live here but I’m leaving to go to greener pastures.
> that were fired as a result because there was not a space in the department to hire them full time (Dutch work law requires contracts to become permanent after a certain number of years of working).
This is a very common law in european companies and is killing economic growth. Idk why they do this.
It's just labor law, these are countries where job security is considered very important. As a result, a lot hinges on having an indefinite duration contract.
The same rule exists in France and you'll have a hard time getting a loan or even a rental if you don't have the sacrosanct CDI (Indefinite Duration Contract), or legal guarantors with one.
It may seem absurd in these edge cases, but it's a way of putting pressure on employers to either hire people for the long term, or let them go.
In this case, it's not necessarily a bad thing in 90% of cases either (because those that don't get permanent employment despite scoring ERCs are certainly very rare), it prevents people from being stringed along in a lab where they're not really building up a career, but rather setting themselves up to be 40 and unemployable, when they're eventually not given the job security the lab would have given 5+ years earlier if they ever intended to/could do so.
The idea is to prevent employees from being used as full time employees but squeezed and then let go.
> It’s nice to live here but I’m leaving to go to greener pastures.
May I ask where you're looking? What countries have the best support for you to do your best work?
I see a lot of complaining from small companies and startups. The taxing system is slowly becoming communism (I have no better word). And they also are stopping farming, based on bad ideas.
I tried to get into fundamental research, but disliked the burocratic approach in Dutch universities.
The taxing system becoming communism? I think you may need to recalibrate that a bit. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/democratic-sociali...
From your link:
>Communism, in its classical sense, seeks public or common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private ownership of major productive assets
That's the eventual mathematical outcome of the new Dutch tax on unrealized capital gains, which combined with the fact that the tax system treats inflation as real gains means that over time the state will come to own all productive assets.
You don't really pay tax in a communist system. No need if the state pays all salaries. China first got a tax law in 1980 as part of Xiaoping's modernization of the Chinese economy and the opening up for the private market.
This reads more like The Netherlands hopes to bribe US researchers into moving to the Netherlands.
why do you call paying someone legally a "bribe" ?
Paying government to make laws allowing you to gain extra profits – lobbying (not a bribe)
Paying mandatory but arbitrary amount to a restaurant on top of your bill – tips (not a hidden fee).
Paying someone an official salary – a bribe.
American logic
Our Glorious Leader <-> Their Wicked Despot comic comes to mind.
In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.
It just means giving someone money or a different incentive to convince them to do something they weren’t going to do or were undecided but considering doing and the extra incentive is the catalyst for making the decision.
We also have the legal concept of a bribe but the OP probably wasn’t using it in the legal sense - I.e. accusing the Netherlands of doing something illegal.
The money isn't really for the researchers personally, but for doing the research. They are merely offered a job at a time where their jobs are on the line in the USA. And not even that, they still have to apply and compete with top researchers from other parts of the world. Really hard to call that a bribe, even in a morally neutral way. At most you could say the Netherlands - and other European countries - are taking advantages of the situation where the USA is abandoning their top researchers.
But for years it has been the other way around. Top talent from the Netherlands has been moving to the US in order to get funding (and a bigger salary).
The OP is using the terms incentive and bribe interchangeably. People do that in the US all the time. I don't think anyone really thinks it is wrong or morally disagreeable what the Netherlands is doing nor are they using the term in the legal sense. I was just explaining why someone might have used that term, obviously the OP probably should speak for themselves though in case they did mean it in the legal sense or something.
Sometimes. But bribery is also a crime, so using that word invites comment.
It's called slang in the United States.
Someone might say "dang they absolutely murdered that slice (I'm watching Wimbledon right now)". Nobody thinks well murdering is a crime, I need to go and comment on how the word murder is used inappropriately here.
No we don’t.
> In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.
I live here in the US. I've NEVER heard the term bribe in a neutral or even positive way. It might be used in a mocking way, as if to mock the idea of bribes, but never seriously.
So, unless you are confusing that mocking nature as morally neutral or even positive, this is incorrect.
I also live in the US. It's uncommon, but is used that way sometimes.
If you want to use a thing utterly incorrectly sometimes get ready to be met with confused responses.
You've never heard a parent or teacher say they bribed their kids for good behavior?
Never in a morally neutral or positive way!
You "Bribe" your kid with extra time on the iPad. You don't "Bribe" them with wholesome things.
Not in a serious way, no (hence my 'mocking' commentary). It's always playing off the joke or idea of "bribe". But if someone said "I bribed a police officer" wouldn't take it as a joke.
Edit: And to be clear, I wouldn't describe either of those are "morally neutral or even positive situations."
But please, by all means tell me how "Foo Company bribed professional Bar" is used positively and frequently enough that the gp makes sense.
right, the proper term is "incentive", "tax break", or "economic development fund"
Then the US used to bribe our researchers. It's tit-for-tat in this case.
I for one am still waiting for US tech companies to bribe me to come work for them.
Actually there are many such headlines, just replace the Netherlands with [China, Singapore, Australia, India].
Official page for the Tulip Fund: https://www.nwo.nl/en/calls/tulip-fund
Top researchers in what?
From what I can tell
AI, quantum, vaccines, cancer, Alzheimer's, mental health, nuclear energy, climate, food security, astrophysics, democratic resilience
There isn't a full list of fields or researchers because of privacy or not all researchers have told their current institutions about the change.
Top. Men.
Who?
And top women: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/07/07/opeens-mochten-we-woord...
Cancer researchers, climatechange, food production, astrophysics, democracy, mental health, Alzheimers, ...
Basically all over the board. But don't worry - you folks still have a president that understands sports really..... REALLY well. /s
Is there money available to absorb more than a handful of these types of people and their research and related costs?
And then Dutch-Americans leave for Bulgaria and Romania .) occasionally Croatia
Another news article in English: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2026/07/top-us-scientists-come-to-n...
The last paragraph has some important context:
"De Jonge Akademie, an association of young scientists, warned last year that the fund could end up recruiting academic stars who are not under threat, at a time when Dutch universities were cutting jobs because of government cutbacks. The new cabinet reversed those cuts last month, pledging up to €428 million a year extra for research."
How did you find this out? Not sure if its true!
This title is very misrepresentative of the actual article.
This is an article about initiatives to attract scientists to the Netherlands, not about some supposed ongoing brain drain.
Hopefully it isn't lithography researchers.
Why hopefully?
Because we need them to compete with ASML.
Wishful thinking
Who are those "top" researchers? and how many?
They are going to live in Netherlands where? In what housing?
Maybe Europe will engage the top American intellectual power into ejecting the real estate prices into orbit.
Will they be exempt from providing ID to post on the internet or nah?
I can post on the Internet whatever I want without providing any ID whatsover.
*For now
The article has failed to prove that anybody has taken the bait and left.
> For the researcher, the qualities must, from an international perspective, far exceed what is customary within the international peer group. The institution receives a maximum of €1 million per researcher for the next five years.
Let's be generous and assume you are one of the chosen ones. Your institution will take 20% off the top leaving with you 1million×.80/5 or 160k EUR per year.
After income taxes, your take home pay is €90,868.00 or $103k USD. Not bad for the average man, but not good for a top researcher like they want.
EUR 160k works out to about $182,640. For that level of income in a top tier institution in a state with an income tax like Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD you would take home $121,565, or 15% more.
https://thetax.nl/?income=160000&startFrom=Year&selectedYear...
This assumes the 1 million is all they get or can use to pay them with. The 1 million is a subsidy, not their salary.
Besides, 90K after taxes is upper middle class. 160K / year is 13K / month which is nearly twice the average income of the richest country in Europe (Switzerland) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...), or top 0.1% according to https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i.
And that's just salary based on that number, it doesn't include other income sources.
Academic pay is standardised in many EU countries. For example in the UK you can look up union rates of pay. At UCL (I'm still currently affiliated as I finish my PhD) the pay for a professor starts at £82,157 and goes up to a minimum of £139,882 for the top band. There is an additional £4,678 on top as a London allowance. This roughly lines up with your figure per year, so seems reasonable as an allocation of cost.
Also there are usually very very generous pension schemes here, so total pay is actually quite a lot higher than stated. In addition there is very generous holiday allowance, 41 days at UCL for instance, since you get extra holidays when the university is closed over certain holiday days.
Assume you are correct, and the Dutch offer a terrible proposition. Yet still they come.
From the article, it sounds more like these funds are the research budget (what you pay other people with). This is quite attractive, students are typically < 200k / PhD, so you can fund quite a few theses with this right off the bat. Basically max out the lab for the grant duration.
I don't know what their salaries would be exactly. This is probably most dependent on where they land, as salaries are very often standardized in Europe. There's usually salary grids per institution dependent on seniority with some milestones being merit-based. Quick google search indicates gross salaries for Professor level (mid/late career) researchers to be around 110-165k€ in NL.
That seems pretty sweet. It's comparable to what US professors make in the hard sciences, as far as I know, with lower CoL than most areas where professors make similar salaries.
And again, salary isn't everything to a researcher. If they can't hire, they're pretty strapped. At this career stage, they're managers, not so much individual contributors. I'd say a maxed out lab for 5 years off the bat is pretty enticing, which also gives time to get up to speed on European funding schemes like ERC grants.
I was a postdoc in the US during Trump's reelection and there were several months where my institution and others had completely cut off scientific staff (such as postdocs, research scientists and engineers) recruitment due to NSF defunding and other threats. Even now, they got taxed on endowment and lost basically 10% budget. This is considerable, and a source of stress for researchers and their current/prospective staff. You can't work properly if you're under the Damocles sword of being laid off / having to lay off your staff.
America is like a trust fund baby given all the advantages and then the baby goes "fuck it, life is too hard, I am just going to do coke and die early”.
I think you meant to write "boomers."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trcILsBHkE
Experts in flies reproduction leave fro Netherlands.
You mean the thing that held Screwworm at bay for decades and kept our beef prices low? That we will now need to spend $Billions re-curtailing because we don't have as much of the capability to do that anymore?
The US once was proud of its scientific achievements, now parts of it replaced that with being very proud of their ignorance
I thought Europe was proud and independent and completely decoupled from the US, why do you need US scientists suddenly? Hmm...
Independence from a country doesn't require excommunication of all citizens of that country
That's part of the decoupling. Onshoring as much knowledge as possible.
Europe needs Americans to decouple from America.
Got it.
Bit of a difference between welcoming and begging to come over.
Everybody is welcome to contribute to the free world, be they American or not.
Interestingly some Europeans also feel that Europe is becoming less free and are fleeing to the US:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/anti-greta-activist-flees-euro...
Ah, Miss Seibt, haven't heard from her in a while. She's a notorious QAnon follower, antisemite and just generally odious far-right extremist.
I'm not surprised she's looking to be with like-minded people. A bit like Lord Haw-Haw back in the day, I suppose.
Isn't much of the science work just taking money for doing basically nothing? I don't think that is a loss for the us.
No. It is for research that wouldn't be funded by companies, since it is either too risky or has too long of a time-horizon. If all academic research was removed from the world you would notice a vast stagnation in technological progress. This can be confirmed by looking at what technologies have come from this process, and what private research built upon public research.
Yea, exactly. You should send all your top scientists to Europe. Great idea to get rid of them. Totally just dragging down your country. Send them to Europe.
Hacker News really isn't what it used to be, huh.
Anti-science crowd found their way here as well.
>Anti-science crowd
"Pregnant men..."
These people have always been here.
They were the ones complaining that we were "brainwashed" when we decried Trump in 2016. They were the ones complaining we were overreacting to him being elected again. They were the ones cheering for DOGE while we pointed out how obviously stupid it was.
Now they feel safe to be loud and proud of their ignorance.
"Science work" is NOT doing nothing. All the modern conveniences we have today came through such work, which usually go for long stretches of time before payoff.
It's not for doing nothing, it's for fooling around at the edge of knowledge. Sometimes, very useful stuff emerges.
You presumably spent 15 or so years in school to learn things of which many only have very indirect applications, and at most a small minority directly applied to your career.
Should we similarly get rid of mandatory education? Most of it is useless after all.
For real. How much more do we need to spend to learn that plants crave Brawndo?
You are motivating me to get enough reputation points to be allowed to downvote.