Not to mention, money per year is a bad metric for how attractive a job is. Americans work much more hours than Germans[1]. I heard about a guy in the Netherlands going back from the UK because even if the pay was good, they wanted him to work overtime. I'd say purchasing power per hours per week is a better metric. (This anecdote was very likely about London specifically, checking the source below I noticed how UK on average is on the short side of workweeks with Netherlands.)

"Work smart, not hard." Seems to me something American employers don't get, they'd rather have you work inefficiently for prolonged periods of time than let you do hard work for a few hours. It's kind of proven that most people burn out and stop being efficient after as little as 30 minutes, there, a short break gets you up and running again, but this has a limit before you totally burn out for the day. So it's not even in their best interest to force you to work a lot. And I much rather work with someone that knows what's good for them, it means they are less likely to make insane requests like forced team work.

Nevermind that, imagine working to a corporation that makes you think of them as "family". I don't know how often corporate culture like that you will encounter in America, but it is there to some extent. And if worst comes to worst, can you be picky?

Here's a source for national workweeks, maybe not every job is considered there, but seems like a good rough estimate that corresponds to people's anecdotes.

[1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-w...

The actual source of information the webpage above uses, it may be more up to date: https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm

TLDR: Consider work culture, actual purchasing power and free time.