This is not the norm, as the employment modalities in that thread are super strange. If you’re employed by a German entity and your salary is 91.1k€, your take-home income would be around 53.8k€. Put another way - the $100k / 91.1k€ are the Arbeitgeberbrutto, they correspond to 75.5k€ Arbeitnehmerbrutto (the number you’d normally see on your contract). The difference exists because there are employer deductions and employee deductions, but the employer deductions don’t show up on the pay slip. Only in this constellation the employee has to pay both. It’s very much the exception, not the norm.

> If you’re employed by a German entity and your salary is 91.1k€, your take-home income would be around 53.8k€. > Put another way - the $100k / 91.1k€ are the Arbeitgeberbrutto, they correspond to 75.5k€ Arbeitnehmerbrutto

I fully disagree. I'm talking about the Arbeitgeberbrutto as it does not make any difference for the employer if he sends the money to you or to the state/health insurance/.... He is already paying it so he would be willing to also pay it to you if he would not have to pay it to the state/health insurance/... So in my opinion it is part of the salary and I think the split into employer deductions and employee deductions just exists to make the contributions appear to be smaller than they actually are.

The post I linked just made it clear to me that salaries aren't that bad in germany compared to other states it is just that we have to pay most of it to the state/health insurance/...

As an employee, the Arbeitgeberbrutto is a number you never see. You’re not saying that employing people isn’t worth it, you’re saying that working in Germany isn’t worth it. Then you have to take the employee’s perspective, not the employer’s. Nobody advertises the true cost to the employer in other countries either. How much do all those benefits to US employees cost? Do you include that when you list US salaries, or do those get magically excluded because health insurance isn’t mandatory?

Your premise just seems fundamentally flawed.

> you’re saying that working in Germany isn’t worth it.

Yes, that's my first sentence in my first comment. My comment was not about reasoning if it is worth to employ people in germany but to state why people may prefer to work less.

> How much do all those benefits to US employees cost? Do you include that when you list US salaries, or do those get magically excluded because health insurance isn’t mandatory?

Yes, if the employer pays it it is part of the loan and should be considered if you compare the loans between different countries.

> Your premise just seems fundamentally flawed.

Okay, to be honest I just don't see how it is flawed. Also I don't have anything left to say. I just don't see why I shouldn't consider it as part of the salary as it would not make a difference to the employer to pay it to the employee instead if the employee deductions wouldn't exist.

-------

Edit: I can't answer anymore. So I'm editing this post.

> Making an argument about how people may want to work less based on a number most have never seen [...] is a flawed argument no matter how you approach it.

Yes, that makes sense. Most employees likely won't think about how much of the Arbeitgeberbrutto is taken away. Still I think if you know it then it reduces ones motivation and it also has the indirect effect of reducing the Arbeitnehmerbrutto an employer is willing to pay and therefore employees may be less motivated due to a low salary.

Making an argument about how people may want to work less based on a number most have never seen or care about is a flawed argument no matter how you approach it.