[vibbs]

Originally Posted by ZenMaster

Its extremely difficult to find a well paying job as a young graduate that can help you afford a decent aspirational standard of living. Forget finding a job in a field you love. The sheer competition,stress and rat race that one has to go through to afford a basic lifestyle is tiring and leads to burn out.

Originally Posted by ZenMaster

You could be right. Being non-IT/CS engineer is not easy in India. Finding 'a' job is not that difficult, but finding a good job is especially in the Non-IT sector.

.

You make some valid points which I think will be lost in this thread because of most people probably reflecting at it from an IT perspective. Yes there is opportunity in India, but competition is sickening and if you are not from one of the lucrative fields (read IT ++), the offers are not as mouth watering as being mentioned here. I alluded to the same thing in my below quoted post.

Originally Posted by vibbs

Thank you for this post. Last few pages of this thread has been one of taking stands and generalising based on individual situations.

I am another mediocre person who can never dream of 1 cr plus job in India. I was born and brought up in Delhi and moved to Pune for my job in my thirties. I spent 6 years in Pune and in the meantime my parents returned back to their roots in Kerala. So not privileged enough to see my parents read their favourite book in the other room while I work either

My life went on - certainly not with the 1 crore plus salaries mentioned in this thread. More like 25 LPA. I was pretty happy to be fair, but it's certainly not the 'wow' profile if you go by the comments on this thread.

.

In 1972, my dad got on to a train from Kerala and went off on a 4 day journey to Delhi. A journey, which back in those days would be tougher than one flying to Europe or US from India today ( except for the visa/immigration hassles). Had he not done that, I may not be sitting here typing this message.

The point is, in life there are no things black and white. Each of us have our own truths and need to take decisions based on what works for us. I had hoped that this thread stops being a sermonizing thread but every now and then it gets back to the same track.

But now I have accepted that also as one truth and made peace. However once the debate dies down a bit, I have some practical questions for trying to evaluate a possible move to Europe

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Having said that, there is no scientific evidence, none, that shows having social safety net makes people less eager to work, get better or anything like that. You only need to study the churn numbers on unemployment, return to work after sickness and you will see very little difference. Apart from some people who abuse the system.

Let me presume to speak for the post you quoted. In professional circles in India, it is well known that you cannot expect a reply from a European counterpart after 4.30 p.m. (their time), and an international video or phone call will only occur within European timeframes, regardless of where the other party is. This is not the case when dealing with Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, or Americans. The simple fact, perceived or real, is that European workers are mollycoddled. This extends from the highest levels to the unemployed. Add to this the social net, and it becomes clear how impressions are formed.

Let me be clear that I admire the social net that most European countries are able to provide for their citizens. As human beings, we have a responsibility to take care of others amongst us who may not be able to do so themselves, whether due to disability, injury, or unfortunate circumstances. While I am disinclined towards patriotism or familial affiliations, I will choose charity and betterment of the living every single time. I also identify with your views on birthplace being accidental. In these, there is no daylight between us. I stress upon this to show that my views are not targeted at you in the least.

Let us also not forget that the ability of European countries to now be rich enough to provide such safety nets is built, in large part, upon the rape and plunder of Africa and Asia. If Europe were to pay back even a tiny fraction of what it stole, most European cities would resemble Mogadishu in a few years, with similar levels of social security.

If Europeans were in fact so fair minded and concerned about welfare irrespective of skin colour, immigration would be open to all as a meritocracy - along the lines of certain other Western countries. The case in point, of Ukrainian war immigrants, is very instructive. They have been welcomed with open arms, and as you pointed out, even been given some tax breaks, simply because they are white. Meanwhile, many Alan Kurdis continue to drown.

India, on the other hand, is a great place to live if you are rich and well connected. Having the right caste, and to a certain extent skin colour, is always an advantage. Very few countries will allow you to break or at least creatively interpret the law with such impunity, depending on wealth and stature, as India does.

[charanreddy]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

We have lived an worked in quite a number of different countries over the last 40 years. Gabon, Congo, Nigeria, Chili, Barbados, USA, India, Germany, Scotland, England to name just a few. On average about 3-3.5 years. Since 2017 we live in the Netherlands (mostly)

I don’t recognise your observations on the EU at all.


In a career spanning forty years I have been made redundant twice. Both times I received unemployment benefits for a few months before I found a new suitable job. I have been on sick leave for the last 20+ months due to a non treatable illness. Here in the Netherlands the first year, your employer pays 100% of your salary and the second year it needs to be at least 70%.
...


The notion that many non_EU people and just about all right wing people have on how much and how long you will be receiving benefits is completely at odds with reality. It is always less (never more than 70% of your last salary and maximized) than what you were earning and it is very limited in time too.

Thank you for the illuminating post. It adds a different perspective than my own backed with use cases and examples. I am sure there is a lot for me to gain by reflecting on your experience and wisdom and stress test my observations.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I think your statement shows where you are coming from. A highly individually approach. As long as you and your immediate loved ones are provided for, you feel great. Screw the rest (pardon my French).

I was just making a point on how to survive in India despite systemic issues at this point in time. No where I have said "Screw the rest". I know its not fair to everyone at this point in time, but one cant magically expect the situation to become so.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I have always hated for instance the UK health system. All people are on the NHS. But those who can afford will get private insurance and will get treatment earlier. To me that is so incredibly wrong. At least in the Netherlands there is simply no private health care. No matter who you are, what you do, or what you earn you get in the queu, like anybody else and wait your turn.

Why is private health care so wrong? If all was so well in the UK with public health care taking care of everyone, then why would one spend on private health care ? The mere fact that people are willing to spend their hard earned money on private health care says a very compelling story. Also does having a private health care impact the public health care in any way ?

In my own case, I suffer from genetic auto immune diseases which I could only get diagnosed for after pursuing the experts in the field. I had no realistic hope of learning about this from our average physicians. I understand an average fellow person may not have the resources to pursue the expert, but that begs the question : Should I not have avenues to pursue and should I wait till everyone has the same opportunity ?

I have heard dreadful stories about the time it takes to get a physician appointment in EU countries. Sometimes that wait is 3 months or more. So hypothetically a disease that could have got diagnosed sooner (Say colon cancer for example), get diagnosed when its too late.

Please share factual data or your experience in getting doctor appointments.

I believe the govt needs to play an active role in making health care affordable and accessible to all. I am not sold yet on the mandatory public health systems.

call me biased, but I think India has got it just right. Just look at the cost of essential medicines Vs rest of the world (without insurance and paying a bomb for it). You could get an ECG in India at dead of the night under 200 rupees. Try getting this in Europe. I attach a lot of this advancement to allowing people to offer private health care (though regulated).

Originally Posted by Jeroen

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look after yourself only. I just prefer a society where there is some common sense on what society needs to provide to all. Which is in my book, schooling (education) health care and some basic benefits to people when they are without income. Which means you need to have political and tax system that regulates that

....

The debate is more about who pays how much, how much will be provided. In the USA the debate is much more fundamental about whether society (government) should provide these sort of services/benefits at all??

...

I put it to you: Can any country that claims to be civilised, let its people starve, freeze to death, not educate, not provide them with equal opportunities? Not look after them at all when they get sick, when they loose their job?

Agree with you 100%. Right to live, right to basic education and right to basic healthcare are fundamental in my book as well.

When you say who pays how much - Isn't this a very important question. If we pay over 50% of income as tax and not save for a rainy day, assuming the government will take care of it all - Isn't this promoting irresponsible saving habits ? Currently in most EU countries, the social spending as a %ge of GDP is >25% and rising. When its my time to retire, I very much doubt the govt has the resources to pay old age pensions to everyone who contributed.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

My son is autistic. He will never ever hold a job. So here in the Netherlands he gets some financial benefits. The absolute minimum, but that is what all Dutch people pay for. Those who really can’t look after themselves, get looked afte and provided by society at large.

You could argue that is a responsibility of the family, but sometimes there is not a family and most families are simply not in a position to be able to bear the financial burden of somebody that needs continuous care and looking after.

I am sorry and empathize with you. My uncle's son is autistic and I have firsthand knowledge of how difficult it is. This is a very clear case where govt. needs to step in.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Interestingly enough you mention pension in the EU. Have you looked at pensions in the USA. It is a very different system not everyone has a pension. But many pensions in the USA are considerably better than the best pension scheme we have in the EU. Many of the 401K scheme start paying out after 20 or 30 years. I don’t get a pension till I am 67. Which means I have been paying premium for 27 years or so. (In all honesty portion of the pension premium is paid by employers as well) . We have a lot of friends in the USA, but amongst our peers, I am the only one at almost 64 who is still (supposed to) work until 67. They all retired much earlier then I ever will. Lazy *******s those Americans, retiring early!!

Let me put this question back to you. Despite paying high taxes in EU for many years, why are you still expected to work till 67 ? Per your own comments, the Americans pay less taxes and get to retire a lot faster.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

But I do believe you need to take a closer look.

Will do. Thanks again for your insightful post.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Let me presume to speak for the post you quoted. In professional circles in India, it is well known that you cannot expect a reply from a European counterpart after 4.30 p.m. (their time), and an international video or phone call will only occur within European timeframes, regardless of where the other party is. This is not the case when dealing with Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, or Americans. The simple fact, perceived or real, is that European workers are mollycoddled. This extends from the highest levels to the unemployed. Add to this the social net, and it becomes clear how impressions are formed.

Let me be clear that I admire the social net that most European countries are able to provide for their citizens. As human beings, we have a responsibility to take care of others amongst us who may not be able to do so themselves, whether due to disability, injury, or unfortunate circumstances. While I am disinclined towards patriotism or familial affiliations, I will choose charity and betterment of the living every single time. I also identify with your views on birthplace being accidental. In these, there is no daylight between us. I stress upon this to show that my views are not targeted at you in the least.

Having worked for multinationals almost all my life dealing with people from all over the world every single day I don’t recognise your observations. My observations are that anywhere the vast majority of employees stick more or less to their hours. But in every organisation there is a small portion of people who will be available 24/7 no matter what, irrespective of the position they hold. And across all levels in all organisations.

Our office in Gurgaon is as empty at 16.30, as our HQ in Stockholm or our office in Dallas.

But even so, I am not so sure why an employee has to be available 24/7. Why should you have to take that video call at 22.00 Hours? You see it as Europeans being mollycoddles, some might say the others are being exploited by their employers.

It is just a matter of perspective and what you find relevant, important and what a society can afford and wants to afford, I believe France made it illegal for employers to contact their employees beyond normal working hours.

Think of it, why are you reading emails at mid night just before you go to bed? And when your alarm clock rings the first thing you do is check your work emails?

Is that healthy? Is that normal? Should it be considered normal. How long do you think you last keeping that up? Etc.

Each to its own, but exploitation and mollycoddling are in the eye of the beholder on what you consider normal, fair and what an employer can expect from an employee.

Look for productivity statistics and you will soon discover it is not about working a lot of hours, but being smart about what you do in the hours you work.

I am no saying one system is better than the other. It’s about preference, your personal motivation, what you feel your employer can expect from you, how that extra effort would be rewarded etc. I have been available 24/7 for almost 40 years. I get calls when I am sitting down with my family for Christmas dinner. I get a huge escalation during the funeral of my father. I could not attend a family reunion because of work. And I have postponed more holidays than I care to remember or can even begin to count.

Yes, I have made a great career to the very top of the pyramid in an International business. I have operated at C level,across the world, been asked to sit on boards and so on. Made a good deal of money too. But I never expect this endless dedication from all my employees. Sure, those on my management team. But for most people this sort of life would quickly result in disaster. My experience is that most people are perfectly willing to work hard, don’t mind the occasional extra hour or so, but also look for a private life next to or beyond their professional career.

That might be different to understand in a country such as India. Where hard work and working harde then the next guy might get you and your loved ones a better (material) life. But this is the big difference between countries as India and many western countries. Most people can make a pretty decent living, own or rent a nice house/apartment, get their kids a good education, buy a car and so on. That doesn’t make them lazy, they have just different expectations on how they would like to live their lives. If you want to work 24/7 you can, but work/balance is hugely important in the west. You can call that mollycoddles, but I feel that is unfair, it suggest those who work harder, bent over backwards for their employer are supposed to be held in higher regard? I don’t think so. Each find itself in a different situation and you can’t compare.

You can be a bus driver, a teacher, a car mechanic, in the west and you will be much better off, relatively than your peers in India. You don’t need to go to university to make a decent life. If you earn more than Euro 100.000 annually you find yourself in the top 1% earners in the Netherlands. That is only less than three times the median salary! It is difficult to imagine how equalised Dutch and other western societies are if you have never lived here.

I am not passing judgement on one system or the other. But it is appropriate to question each system and to understand what makes it tick and what motivates people. Very different, not better of worse, just veryndifferent I believe.
Jeroen

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

I was just making a point on how to survive in India despite systemic issues at this point in time. No where I have said "Screw the rest". I know its not fair to everyone at this point in time, but one cant magically expect the situation to become so.
.

Fair point, and everybody needs to do his/her own thing of course

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Why is private health care so wrong? If all was so well in the UK with public health care taking care of everyone, then why would one spend on private health care ? The mere fact that people are willing to spend their hard earned money on private health care says a very compelling story. Also does having a private health care impact the public health care in any way ? .

Let’s stick with the UK because I am fairly well aquatinted with it. We lived in the UK and my wife worked for the NHS for many years, as an employee and as a private consultant. Our best friends in the UK, she still works for the NHS and he is a retired NHS/Private practice surgeon.

I am no expert on this, just my opinion. I believe the NHS system has been underfunded for decades. Especially during Tory governments. It has also been, maybe as a consequence been mismanaged. There is nothing wrong with private health care as such. But in the UK only 13% can afford private health care. The other 87% have no option but to stick with the NHS. And here comes the cruncher. Many of the doctors, surgeons and so on work in both the NHS and private.

Add Brexit which meant a lot of the nurses and supporting staff were kicked out of the country and you begin to understand the challenges of the NHS. It is severely underfunded and understaffed. Not sure if this news has reached India, but there are, for the first time ever, huge strike ongoing in the UK with respect to NHS workers, noticeably nurses, ambulances and so on. This is supposed to be a country that regards itself as the pinnacle of western civilisation. But it can’t get an ambulance to you if you are in desperate need. And even if it does, when the ambulance arrives with you in the back at the hospital you might have to wait for hours and hours before you will get admitted. It is a real mess.

Our surgeon friend Philip worked four days a week in the NHS, the fifth day he actually rented the facilities, office, waiting room, theatre, nurses, staff from the NHS. He made as much money during that one day private work as during four days of NHS. His biggest gripe was the NHS management. Which had no clue, none whatsoever what he was actually doing.

If you came to consult with him, he would examine you thoroughly. And then he would tell you, I can fit you in four months from now, unless you go private in which case I can see you next week. How odd is that?

Bottomline, the UK has a system where if you have money, you can get better and quicker medical care than those who don’t. To me, that is wrong. Period. If I would find myself in a situation where I could buy me or my wife to the front end of the que I would probably do so. The flesh is weak as they say.

So I am very happy being in the Netherlands where that is simply not possible. We dont have private health insurance and virtually no private hospitals, apart from the odd cosmetic surgeries. Well, if you want your lips, boobs, butt deformed quickly and at a considerable expense, be my guest!

Studies have been done which suggest that if the extra money spend by those 13% of folks getting private insurance was pumped into the NHS, most if not all problems would disappear!!

Originally Posted by charanreddy

In my own case, I suffer from genetic auto immune diseases which I could only get diagnosed for after pursuing the experts in the field. I had no realistic hope of learning about this from our average physicians. I understand an average fellow person may not have the resources to pursue the expert, but that begs the question : Should I not have avenues to pursue and should I wait till everyone has the same opportunity ? .

So my question would be; why would those expert not be made available to you, or anybody else that needs them. If you have a proper organsied NHS those experts would be working for the NHS. (See for instance Canada health services).

And your place in the que to see an expert should depend on the severity of your ailment, not on how much you can afford to spend on health care. (Just my opinion of course)

both my wife and I are suffering from some serious ailments and we are both seen by the top experts in the Netherlands, as part of our normal Health insurance. Some insurance will offer you a discount on your premium if you allow them to choose your medical provider. It’s a choice, we like to chose our own, so we pay a few euro’s extra!

Originally Posted by charanreddy

I have heard dreadful stories about the time it takes to get a physician appointment in EU countries. Sometimes that wait is 3 months or more. So hypothetically a disease that could have got diagnosed sooner (Say colon cancer for example), get diagnosed when its too late.

Please share factual data or your experience in getting doctor appointments..

It varies from country to country and even from city to city. Personally I have never had any problems. But then again I don’t mind travelling a bit. I remember a case where I had to see an eye specialist. Local waiting times were about 10-12 weeks. But I could see a specialist the same week in a hospital in Harlem about an hours drive from where we lived.

If there is a real emergency you will be take care off of course. But yes, waiting times can be a bit of a challenge here and there.
I also believe that Indian visit doctors way to frequently. You can see some comments in earlier post from members who migrated to the Netherlands. We are supposed to make some good judgement calls, Just because your kid is running a fever, doesn’t mean he/she has to see a doctor!

Mind you, in order to get to see a specialist you almost always need a referral from your GP first. And he/she might try a few things themselves first before referring you to a specialist.

Originally Posted by charanreddy

I believe the govt needs to play an active role in making health care affordable and accessible to all. I am not sold yet on the mandatory public health systems.

call me biased, but I think India has got it just right. Just look at the cost of essential medicines Vs rest of the world (without insurance and paying a bomb for it). You could get an ECG in India at dead of the night under 200 rupees. Try getting this in Europe. I attach a lot of this advancement to allowing people to offer private health care (though regulated). .

I can tell you one thing, the cost of medicins in India was just out of this world for me. In fact the cost of health care was beyond me. India was the only country I have ever lived and worked where I did not have health insurance. My company told me to just get the medical service I need and to expense it. Which we did, and the service was very very good and very cheap, compared to what we were used to. Medicines in particular are very cheap in India compared to the west

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Agree with you 100%. Right to live, right to basic education and right to basic healthcare are fundamental in my book as well.

When you say who pays how much - Isn't this a very important question. If we pay over 50% of income as tax and not save for a rainy day, assuming the government will take care of it all - Isn't this promoting irresponsible saving habits ? Currently in most EU countries, the social spending as a %ge of GDP is >25% and rising. When its my time to retire, I very much doubt the govt has the resources to pay old age pensions to everyone who contributed. .

Well, an ageing population is something that needs to be addressed. See my point below as well.

Originally Posted by charanreddy

I am sorry and empathize with you. My uncle's son is autistic and I have firsthand knowledge of how difficult it is. This is a very clear case where govt. needs to step in.
.

Agree.

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Let me put this question back to you. Despite paying high taxes in EU for many years, why are you still expected to work till 67 ? Per your own comments, the Americans pay less taxes and get to retire a lot faster.
.

A very good question. And it requires quite the elaborate answer. Again, I am no expert in these matters, and I will greatly simplify to try and illustrate what I think is happening.

Up till some years ago, the Dutch pension schemes were considered the best in the world. In terms of robustness, pay out and so on. Nothing nowhere would come close.

The Dutch pension scheme is split into two parts. Everybody over the age of 25 years builds toward a so called state pension. 40 years gets you the state pension. People who are employed pay toward a mandatory company organised pension scheme. In the past these company provided pension schemes would pay out about 70% of your last earned salary. On top of that you would get the state pension and when you retire your income tax has a lower tax rate bracket too.

So effectively, from a nett income perspective you would be about the same as your last salary.

Dutch pension funds are extremely regulated. In what they can invest and how many reserves they need to keep. Their reserves needed to be about 110-115% of the outstanding pension obligations at any time.

But we have gone through a couple of decades of very low interest rates and an increasing average life span. Which effectively means both the company provide pensions and the state pension need to pay out longer.

When you look at the demographics of the USA, it is far more favourable than the Netherlands or the EU. They have a much younger population.

As we speak the Netherlands is about to introduce the largest pension transition/transformation ever. Rather than a guaranteed pension income everybody will get a personal pension pot. And when you retire you can buy a pension with that pot of money. The return of investment of that pot money is not guaranteed, neither is the pension pay out. Really depends on the (investment) and interest markets.

So it as all about long levity which is going to cost more and how much each pension pays out.

The other thing, pensions are not paid from tax. You pay a separate amount for your pension. It is tax deductible, so your pension payment is deducted from your gross salary before income tax is deducted. But then again, you do pay tax, albeit at a slightly lower rate, when you retire and your pension funds start paying out.

In countries such as the Netherlands we have a quite hight income tax if you are an employee. On top of that you need to pay your own mandatory National health insurance, your pension and a few others social benefits.

Jeroen

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Our office in Gurgaon is as empty at 16.30, as our HQ in Stockholm or our office in Dallas.

Yes, this is my point. Perhaps I should have said European companies. Leaving at 4.30 p.m. in any Indian or American company would be career suicide.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

But even so, I am not so sure why an employee has to be available 24/7. Why should you have to take that video call at 22.00 Hours? You see it as Europeans being mollycoddles, some might say the others are being exploited by their employers.

If I have to get a deal done, I will do what it takes. My livelihood, and those of my team, depend on it. As a result, I offer international counterparts the flexibility to work within their time zones. Japanese and Americans will do the same - late night calls in Tokyo or LA - but Europeans will insist on it being done at their convenience. I believe this short-term arrogance stems from being mollycoddled in the long term. And I'm talking about the employers here, not the employees.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I believe France made it illegal for employers to contact their employees beyond normal working hours.

Yes. So if a French employee has to talk to someone in Japan, the Japanese guy has to stay awake because c'est la vie. The French live in a la-la land where they are all about egalite (sans accent, desolee), while fattening themselves off the spoils of African reserves. I have had the misfortune of working with French companies, and a slow painful death is sometimes preferable.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Think of it, why are you reading emails at mid night just before you go to bed? And when your alarm clock rings the first thing you do is check your work emails?

Is that healthy? Is that normal? Should it be considered normal. How long do you think you last keeping that up? Etc.

Until my family or my people can choose to not work permanent jobs, because I've provided a social security net that my government can't.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

My experience is that most people are perfectly willing to work hard, don’t mind the occasional extra hour or so, but also look for a private life next to or beyond their professional career.

I identify with your life currently. I also agree with your statement. My point is this - it is never the European employee who will go the extra hour.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You can call that mollycoddles, but I feel that is unfair, it suggest those who work harder, bent over backwards for their employer are supposed to be held in higher regard? I don’t think so. Each find itself in a different situation and you can’t compare.

I agree with you, and no, that is not my posit. I am simply stating, as earlier, that a European employee will never accomodate another person's time-zone or work needs if it in any way at all exceeds their own.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You can be a bus driver, a teacher, a car mechanic, in the west and you will be much better off, relatively than your peers in India. You don’t need to go to university to make a decent life. If you earn more than Euro 100.000 annually you find yourself in the top 1% earners in the Netherlands. That is only less than three times the median salary! It is difficult to imagine how equalised Dutch and other western societies are if you have never lived here.

Actually, I've lived close to a decade in the West, and I'm still technically a resident, might even move back next year. My second point was that this whole construct of high social equality is based on the fruits of slave labour and pillage of entire continents.

[rrsteer]

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

A close relative of mine who has hardly stepped outside Punjab or had company of other communities, has a son in Canada. His wife was pregnant and as customary there, they announced the baby to be a girl. My relative informed me of this development and proudly added that he "consoled his son and told him not to worry".
What a shame that I could not say "Shame to you!"

Originally Posted by dragracer567

2) India is just a terrible place to be a women. I’m not married and don’t have any kids but if I happen to have a daughter, I really don’t want to raise her in India. Now again, women’s safety is an issue everywhere and places like the US have been regressing on women’s rights but the terrible truth is that women in India seldom have agency of their own and even those from liberal families will face resistance from the society at large for their lifestyles. This is amplified by the fact that India has one of the lowest female labour participating in the world - lower than countries in the Gulf infact. It’s not surprising if we come out of our upper middle class urban bubbles. If I have a daughter in say, the next 5 years, I wouldn’t have the luxury to wait for 50 years for the situation for women to improve in India

In a household comprising of 5 members, I am currently the only male member. Our family is by an large female dominated and as luck would have it comprises of some overachievers.

At the height of terrorism in Punjab, my mom built and ran a string of home decor stores. As a person with no business degree or prior business experience, what she achieved for herself, us and her employees is simply remarkable. If there was a thread about business cases in T-bhp, I'd love to share her small story.

My mother-in-law, with no prior healthcare experience and motivated just by the loss of one of her dear friends, setup a paraplegic care center 4 -5 years back. Many discouraged her at the time(including me). It is now recognized as among the best care/rehabilitation facilities in the region. She is regularly covered by the local written press and was also recently covered by one of the national English news channels.

Apart from the above, my sister in law leads the marketing function of a multinational and I just recently read a post here in t-bhp itself which quoted an interview where my first cousin sister was the interviewee.

So, whats my point? Just because some female members from my family succeeded in their chosen field, I can't comment that India is a great place for women, similarly I'd request not to make blanket statements to the opposite effect. It would be akin to me advising friends in US, not to raise children there because of the deadly mass school shootings that are so prevalent there.

At the same time, not for an instant am I trying to trivialize the issue with women security or female feticide in India. These are social evils that should have been and ought to be tackled on a war footing. But to present them as reasons to make a decision as important as not settling down in India, I think is stretching it too far.

PS: As much as some like saying that India is a country of rapists, in my limited travels abroad and what little I gather from reading books and consuming media, I also think there is still no other country/place where women are accorded as much respect as in India.

Cheers!

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

If I have to get a deal done, I will do what it takes. My livelihood, and those of my team, depend on it. As a result, I offer international counterparts the flexibility to work within their time zones. Japanese and Americans will do the same - late night calls in Tokyo or LA - but Europeans will insist on it being done at their convenience. I believe this short-term arrogance stems from being mollycoddled in the long term. And I'm talking about the employers here, not the employees.

Yes. So if a French employee has to talk to someone in Japan, the Japanese guy has to stay awake because c'est la vie. The French live in a la-la land where they are all about egalite (sans accent, desolee), while fattening themselves off the spoils of African reserves. I have had the misfortune of working with French companies, and a slow painful death is sometimes preferable.

Hi v1p3r, at the outset, I must clarify that I always appreciate your posts and almost always agree with your views. But I do have a difference of opinion here. As Jeroen pointed out, the situation isn't as dire in Europe, at least from my point of view. I lived in Europe for a good 3-4 years and still hold a Spanish temporary residency while I've also dealt with many European companies as well, including French. Those from management and business development positions are generally available at flexible hours including in France. The general rule of thumb as far as I've seen is that the party with the selling proposition or the more interested party will be more flexible. Infact, I've held meetings with a French company even on Sundays because we work on Sundays here in Bahrain. Offcourse, the European workforce are generally more rigid of their timings outside these spheres. Some of my friends in Europe including one who works in a pharma company in Belgium does work overtime but then gets paid for the same at overtime rates which just makes more sense. Others are provided flexible work hours which also makes more sense.

Honestly, it is petty for employers to expect employees to observe the 9 AM check-in time strictly but won't respect the 5 PM check-out time. This is an argument I had a couple of times with my boss in my previous job but he eventually came around because I delivered more than what was expected of me and single-handedly brought in major projects that greatly increased profits. At my present job, I have flexible hours, so I choose when I get my work done. At both my jobs, I got very good appraisals despite not grinding 24/7. Honestly, for most white color jobs, if you can't finish your work in 40-48 hours, you either aren't doing it right or your employer is cutting corners by under-staffing the company.

We really should stop romanticizing grinding, it will work for maybe 1/5 employees but the rest are grinding for nothing.

Originally Posted by rrsteer

So, whats my point? Just because some female members from my family succeeded in their chosen field, I can't comment that India is a great place for women, similarly I'd request not to make blanket statements to the opposite effect. It would be akin to me advising friends in US, not to raise children there because of the deadly mass school shootings that are so prevalent there.

At the same time, not for an instant am I trying to trivialize the issue with women security or female feticide in India. These are social evils that should have been and ought to be tackled on a war footing. But to present them as reasons to make a decision as important as not settling down in India, I think is stretching it too far.

Actually I would advise exactly that to my friends who plan to migrate to the US.

As I said in an earlier post, this might not be a problem for those who haven't seen the other side but it genuinely is a problem for those looking from the other side, especially for those like me who wish to move. It isn't just security and feticide, I've elaborated this in an earlier post quoted below:

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The women (mothers, grandmothers etc.) in both our lives who've never left India would certainly be contented enough because they don't know what the other side looks like. Infact, I've met women (from professional spheres) in Saudi Arabia who are quite content with the state of affairs there. Also, it is easier for women in India if they fit into certain conservative boxes BUT if they decide to make their own choices that doesn't fit into these boxes, life can be really hard for them. Even if the families allow these women to make their own choices, the society will still make life hard for them. Women in our lives - mothers, grandmothers etc. probably didn't face this issue since they were taught from an young age to be submissive and fit into the predetermined social norms, even if they did have vibrant careers. It's hard to fit women from our current/future generation into these norms, especially in this inter-connected world with a free flow of information.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Our family is by an large female dominated and as luck would have it comprises of some overachievers.

I think this is the crucial point. This is anecdotal at best. Larger numbers do not hold this out to be true. Separately, congratulations to your family for being so, they are remarkable and we should all be so lucky to be surrounded by such strong women.

Originally Posted by rrsteer

It would be akin to me advising friends in US, not to raise children there because of the deadly mass school shootings that are so prevalent there.

This is actually a reasonably major reason for people such myself, who have the liberty of moving, to not choose the US.

Originally Posted by rrsteer

I also think there is still no other country/place where women are accorded as much respect as in India.

Unfortunately, both history and present statistics paint a very different picture. India has a culture of treating women as subordinate - there are some very famous lines from texts around this. I will not go into the details for fear of a flame war.

As far as the present goes, Indian infant ratios are amongst the worst in the world, second only to China. We trail even countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, hardly shining beacons of female empowerment.



Our labour participation scenario is even worse, where again we are bottom amongst our developing neighbours, and less than 30% that of China.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Hi v1p3r, at the outset, I must clarify that I always appreciate your posts and almost always agree with your views. But I do have a difference of opinion here. As Jeroen pointed out, the situation isn't as dire in Europe, at least from my point of view.

Thank you. I respect both Jeroen and you, which is why I've engaged in this conversation. I am happy to have disagreement and be proven wrong on the forum, just like real life where I'm married.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Offcourse, the European workforce are generally more rigid of their timings outside these spheres.

QED.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

We really should stop romanticizing grinding, it will work for maybe 1/5 employees but the rest are grinding for nothing.

Agreed. Grinding should not be held up, and 80/20 applies. However, I don't see that 20% showing a similar attitude amongst the Europeans I deal with. I have never dealt with anyone who works like Jeroen described. Perhaps it is my misfortune.

My posit about Europe affording white socialism (new term?) today as a result of racist and imperialist policies has not changed.

[carthick1000]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

However, I don't see that 20% showing a similar attitude amongst the Europeans I deal with. I have never dealt with anyone who works like Jeroen described. Perhaps it is my misfortune.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

I identify with your life currently. I also agree with your statement. My point is this - it is never the European employee who will go the extra hour.


I agree with you, and no, that is not my posit. I am simply stating, as earlier, that a European employee will never accomodate another person's time-zone or work needs if it in any way at all exceeds their own.

I can confidently say from experience you have had a misfortune, because most of my European colleagues have supported me or other colleagues at odd hours, who were working on projects in US. So it depends on individual rather than a collective. Better luck next time!

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

PS: As much as some like saying that India is a country of rapists, in my limited travels abroad and what little I gather from reading books and consuming media, I also think there is still no other country/place where women are accorded as much respect as in India.

Cheers!

So true but its just that the 'women' need to be immortalized in clay or stone form as goddesses to be accorded respect like no where else in the world.

Living ones are a different matter all together and objective data points will substantiate that.

[rrsteer]

At the onset, let me add, I think migrating for greener pastures is an individuals choice. What constitutes greener pastures is also up to the individual to define for himself/herself. So, if someone says he/she is migrating because they feel women in general will have better opportunities abroad, I understand. What I questioned was how is the country on a whole a terrible place for women? Also let me quickly add, I am no Indophile.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

I think this is the crucial point. This is anecdotal at best.

Its not uncommon too. Why would you say its anecdotal at best?
For example, if I look at my college batchmates, most females from my batch have done well in their respective careers and a couple have outshone most.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

This is actually a reasonably major reason for people such myself, who have the liberty of moving, to not choose the US.

OK
But how absurd would this idea be to a person settled in US?

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Unfortunately, both history and present statistics paint a very different picture.

I am in no way denying/defending any of the points raised by you above. Sadly, all true and most of us would know it without even checking up the statistics (except the point on Pak & Afghanistan - who is even collecting this data in these countries?). My only contention was, have things reached such an abyss at all levels , that this particular issue warrants one to leave the country or not come back to the country? And, aren't things improving? isn't society fighting back? - e.g. on the issue of female feticide - the numbers are constantly improving in both Punjab & Haryana - the hotbed of this terrible practice.

I respect you (probably) and dragracer567 feeling this is among the major criteria in making an immigration related decision, on the contrary I don't. And to my defense, living in a place where every other person is leaving India or planning to leave India, this is one reason to move out that I hadn't heard before.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Its not uncommon too. Why would you say its anecdotal at best?
For example, if I look at my college batchmates, most females from my batch have done well in their respective careers and a couple have outshone most.

I say it is anecdotal precisely because of our discussion. Our families and collegemates are outliers, while the macro data shows that female workforce participation is less than a third of China's or the US.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

...if I look at my college batchmates, most females from my batch have done well in their respective careers and a couple have outshone most...

This is in no way a disagreement with anything you've said, but the bit in bold itself puts your female batchmates, scratch that, you and your batchmates of any description, in an extremely small outlier group.

Having access to an education, the ability to afford it, the ability to buy the computer you're accessing this forum on, the education and language skills that enable you to argue this subject so articulately with others on here, puts you in a privileged position of a very small minority.

I've been exposed to our public school education system for the last couple decades, and I mean the real public schools where the lower rungs of our privilege pyramid sends their children, and even they're more fortunate than the bottom rungs who can't even afford that (free school still costs money to get educated, money they don't have), and upward mobility is literally just a daydream, staying in school that barely qualifies as one, still a monumental achievement in itself.

You seem educated, empathetic and articulate. All I'll say is please remember we're part of very small minority (locally and globally) that can claim we made it, and those that don't, it's not always for lack of wanting or trying, as a lot of 'social security is for bums' narratives would have us believe.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Why is private health care so wrong? If all was so well in the UK with public health care taking care of everyone, then why would one spend on private health care ? The mere fact that people are willing to spend their hard earned money on private health care says a very compelling story. Also does having a private health care impact the public health care in any way ?

Honestly, I don't mean to be rude. Just take this as an old guy with some more experience talking, but... Have you heard the expression fractal wrongness? It means that a pont of view is so wrong, that every part of it is wrong, and the more one looks into it, the more each part is also wrong.

OK, so how is your view so wrong? Because you have not asked yourself why any of the things that you may have noticed being bad are bad. They are bad because they have been managed into that situation. By people whose policies and purses are the beneficiaries.

Look deeper

And yeah, India... health insurance. I just managed to get it, after being repeatedly turned down because I had surgery thirty years ago for something which simply can't recur. It costs me a massive 60k per year and has a pretty mean limit.