> Higher productivity is also why jobs pay so much more in the U.S. than the E.U.

You mean the top tier jobs or the bottom 90%?

They pay so much more because the US is very ok with big income inequality.

Those unions represent a much bigger share of the population, so shouldn't they have more away in a democratic system (where demos is people)

▲

ETH_start 2 days ago | parent [-]

Median income and the purchasing power of disposable income are substantially higher in the U.S.

The public sector unions do represent a much larger share of the population than the CEOs but in absolute terms public sector workers constitute a very small share of the population, while receiving a large share of public spending. Given they are being rewarded with huge amounts of tax dollars from the party they help keep/put in power, the concern that there's a systemic pay-to-play dynamic at work is very justified.

▲

hvb2 2 days ago | parent [-]

> but in absolute terms public sector workers constitute a very small share of the population, while receiving a large share of public spending

Uh... Just no? Public spending? That's défense, health care, entitlements etcetera etcetera

I'll actually back it up with some numbers too:

> That’s 1% of gross domestic product, and almost 5% of total federal spending. The government payroll for other developed countries is typically 5% of GDP, Kettl said.

From: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/03/06/federal-workers...

And this

> Median income and the purchasing power of disposable income are substantially higher in the U.S.

Not sure what you're basing that on but there's this too > The statistic is used to show how unequal things have become in the U.S.: Some 40% of Americans would struggle to come up with even $400 to pay for an unexpected bill

From: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/what-a-400-dolla...

So unless they're all spending money irrationally, they have no money to save meaning little or no disposable income

▲

IanCal 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Disposable income is essentially just income after tax. It’s the amount you have where you get to direct where it goes / how you dispose of it. It’s not money after essentials.

There are many ways to slice it but the US median income is high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

	▲	hvb2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		TIL, I've always thought it was minus housing etc. Apparently that's discretionary income.

▲

ETH_start 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If we use BEA/FRED "compensation of employees" (wages + benefits), the payroll picture is:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A4076C0A144NBEA

All US government employees (federal + state + local): $2.409T in 2023.

US nominal GDP in 2023: $27.812T.

So government compensation = ~8.7% of GDP (2.409 / 27.812).

Breakdown (2023):

Federal government compensation: $634.9B (~2.3% of GDP).

State + local compensation: $1.7846T (~6.4% of GDP).

State/local education: $863.1B

State/local other: $783.2B

For cross-country median disposable income comparisons, OECD has a direct chart:

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-202...

Your $400 stat is about liquidity and balance-sheet fragility; it doesn't tell you the cross-country level of median PPP-adjusted disposable income. OECD Figure 4.1 is the relevant comparison.

Generally, countries with more government social spending have lower savings rates, because people irresponsibly rely on the taxpayer as their backstop, so I'm not surprised at all. The U.S. actually has very high levels of social spending, despite the stereotype of it being a very free-market-oriented economy. That leads to those who qualify for many social programs, i.e. low-income earners, to put aside a relatively small portion of their income for savings.

	▲	hvb2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Since you took the data for federal and state and local, you end up with 22.51 million employees[1]. Out of a total number of employed people of ~160M that's 1 in 8 employees. If you're calling 1 in 8 'a small share' the we just disagree there. As to the $400 statistic, let me just point out that this > That leads to those who qualify for many social programs, i.e. low-income earners, to put aside a relatively small portion of their income for savings. Is very much an opinion, not a fact. Maybe there's also that for the low income earners there isn't any money left after paying for housing, food and such. And I'm not even talking about health insurance. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governm...