Canada seems appealing to Americans until you realize you could be earning more in the U.S. while spending less on a bunch of other things.
Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada and I mostly don't miss living in Bay Area, but most of my friends lament the fact that their salary and career opportunities are a joke compared to what they could have in the U.S. (even adjusting for cost of living).
Canada would be an odd choice for many reasons, but is probably attractive for the combination of proximity, and cultural/linguistic similarities. For me, I've been looking at Ireland, Denmark, or the Netherlands for a while, and I'd say they're looking far more attractive today than yesterday.
Besides, money isn't everything. There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites, and insane levels of violence too. Not to mention the impact this will have on the SCOTUS, and how incredibly screwed up healthcare is.
If you didn't read the newspaper, how many of the negative things you mentioned would actually impact your life? Would you even know who was president for the last 4 (or the next 4) based on the impacts to your life? I'd guess not.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.
I grew up and lived most of my life in America, then emigrated to a country with universal healthcare (the UK). When I developed a life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered, the National Health Service saved my life.
These things don't matter until they really, really, really do. Having seen the grass on both sides of the fence, I can attest that it really can be meaningfully greener.
They are and we aren't fighting back tooth and nail to stop them.
We just let them do it because we (collective we) have grown so used to having it we can't remember what it was like before, people dying from treatable conditions because they couldn't afford it, average life expectancy been a whole decade lower (or more) etc.
We (again collective) won't realise what we had until it's gone.
My filthy tories voting friends do actually agree that police, nhs, fire services, etc are worth spending money on. I think the Tories have lost sight of what is important to their supporters.
I've gotten a pavlovian response to "good things", where I start imagining it already breaking down.
Like Obamas presidency. For every good he's done or tried to do, all the shit in the world that affects the US (and even things that are not real apparently) gets pinned on him, regardless of cause.
And sure, Obamacare probably has a lot of faults, but is that because of its concept, because of congressional gridlock, or compromises?
I won't argue either way, but it's always sad when something gets dismantled or at least scolded for reasons outside of its grasp.
I don't know enough about NHS to say, but spending £600M/year on management consultants doesn't sound like a healthcare problem.
I'm not religious, but it's the same with Islam being lumped together with extremists, Christianity being lumped in with crusades and westboro baptists and other lunatics, and both republicans and liberals being categorized by a few vocal idiots.
Sometimes you have to try to look objectively at something and the faults alongside it, and try to determine if they are one and the same. Sometimes it's worth fighting to improve something instead of just burning it to the ground, because there's a good chance the new foundation being built is worse than what you destroyed.
Long-term back pain that counted as a pre-existing condition for every insurance package I had, on the rare occasions when I could afford to be insured. That eventually degenerated into a couple of prolapsed disc that cut off the nerves to may legs, resulting in constant pain (the kind that leaves you screaming and writhing without a constant morphine drip) and making it impossible to walk, sit up, or go to the bathroom unaided. While not technically a life-threatening condition, my quality of life was low enough that I certainly would have committed suicide had it persisted indefinitely.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
> "life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered"
I wonder how is that possible? Insurance plans these days have to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition, even the cheapest plans cover everything after a deductible, unless I am missing something
Thank Obamacare for that, and that only kicked in on 2011. Prior to that, insurance recission was a real and pervasive issue for those with preexisting conditions.
> You have to wonder how long 'Obamacare' is going to last now with a Republican president, congress and senate...
I don't think the Republicans have enough people in the Senate to block filibusters. So I assume the Democrats will use the filibuster to block repeals of the healthcare law.
Why in the world would the GOP ever leave the filibuster in place? Mitch will remove it at the beginning of the 115th Congress.
Boom. Now Obamacare can be repealed with simple majority. I bet you dollars to donuts that insurance prices, however, will not go back down to pre-Obamacare prices. Because profits.
The fact that prices went up at all shows there is a huge problem. We're already paying more than anyone else in the world, why can't we get something for our money instead of having to pay even more?
To give you an example - my dad had to take 2 boxes of Glivec per month to keep him alive(he was predicted to survive 3-6 months, thanks to Glivec he lived another 8 years). Glivec, last time I checked, is currently 12 thousand dollars a box in US. And sure, most health insurance in US would cover most of that. But if you have to take two $12k boxes per month, and insurer says they will cover $10k per box, you suddenly have to find $4k per month just to buy your life saving medicine. In effect sure, you have insurance, but unless you are rich, you are fucked. The whole idea of deductible on health insurance is pretty much a US-only invention, and it literally kills people who are in theory "covered".
As a fairly young US citizen I'm curious, I thought that most health care plans have an out of pocket maximum that is usually in the low to mid thousands per year. Would this situation not be one that limits the yearly cost that way?
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
Average rent ranges from $500-$3600/mth though for illustrative purposes (taking into account people in expensive places share) let's use $1K/mth for our hypothetical person. [3]
That leaves you with $16K/yr (male) and $7K/yr (female) for food, transportation and incidental expenses.
Obamacare backed health plans have a maximum out-of-pocket of $7K/yr for individuals.
Yeah, I'd say the median American is pretty much SOL if they get sick even if they have insurance. And those figures don't take into account the price of the insurance itself if your employer elects not to provide it to you.
In the UK your NHS annual out-of-pocket maximum is $0.
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
The tax calculator you reference includes estimates of sales, property, and fuel taxes (which make up much of the tax total at the incomes here), which are actually rolled into rent, transportation, and general purchases, so you are double counting some expenses.
Obamacare added three provisions in particular that affected my family. Annual and lifetime caps on coverage were banned, dropping sick policyholders was banned, and all plans were required to set maximum out-of-pocket costs.
My family has easily hit the pre-Obamacare lifetime coverage limits and fairly frequently would've hit the annual ones. Our $4k out-of-pocket cap saves us from 10-50k in coinsurance/copays depending on the year. As a result, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they could.
Based on Republican control of House, Senate, and White House, their having explicitly stated they'd repeal Obamacare, and the ability to do a lot of damage to the law without risking a filibuster (which they can do away with entirely, incidentally). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/the-future-of-obama...
After two or three conservative justices are appointed the court your life will be mega affected. Are you gay? Kiss gay marriage goodbye. Right to privacy ? Gone. Wanna buy or own a sex toy? Those were illegal in many states until a progressive court put an end to it. A conservative court will absolutely reverse that.
Can you point to some supreme court cases? One that comes to mind is Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the "sodomy law" by a largely republican court (I think only one or two justices were democratic at the time)
That's a gross misstatement of Citizens United. People do not give up their right to free speech by forming a voluntary organization (aka a corporation). We know this is true because we allow corporations and organizations like the New York Times, the ACLU, and the Teamsters unions to have a right to free speech.
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
Gay marriage is here to stay because of a massive shift in public opinion on the issue which has been taking place over decades. None of that is going away.
History is pretty consistent that candidates actually do try to enact what they say during campaigns... Anyone expecting a suddenly different President Trump vs. Candidate Trump will likely be in for a surprise.
Trump has said many things that contradict reality. These are clearly lies. Trump has said many things that contradict other things that he has said. These indicate more lies. Trump has made many promises regarding policy. There is no reason to believe these to be lies. I am hopeful that they are, but it is just a hope.
Come on, be realistic. The guy would say anything to get votes. He is just like my Swedish politicians [0]. So what will the US and the rest of the world get? I don't know. You don't know. I'm not even certain that Trump knows.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
He said a lot of things which appealed to certain voters but pretty clearly aren't going to happen. His style is to overstate. People on the other side taking his words literally has led to a lot of fear.
Well most of the state and city bans to limit the 2nd amendment were struck down by the courts.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion"
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
> No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since?
Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch.
I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
An an actual repeal of Roe v. Wade (or Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unlikely. It's mainly red meat for the base. To actually do it would be political suicide of the type we saw when an unpopular ACA was passed.
All it will take is a reversion to "let the states decide", which may also be what we see with issues such as abortion. What scares me though, are the decisions like Citizens United, issues with privacy and regulatory oversight, and that kind of thing.
However, as long as you are not directly affected by any of those, e.g. you are not LBGTQ, you might consider staying to defend LGBTQ rights and thereby have a more meaningful impact. Even if you're not a politician, voting, educating your children and talking to friends and coworkers can have a significant impact.
Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got a mandate to take action against the media and free speech on the internet. What's left?
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support.
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience.
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
Yes. I have two sisters that could lose access to birth control and planned parenthood. One of them dates a black man and already gets racial slurs thrown at them in public. These results are only going to embolden that behavior. America has voted for a mysogynistic sexist at its highest ceremonial office, you don't think that affects what is acceptable discourse? You don't think the SCOTUS is changed for a generation now?
It's not just a trump presidency, it's a trump presidency rubber stamping a republican house and senate, which will follow through on their stated intention to install judges to repeal Roe V Wade, and to establish a more conservative, evangelical agenda.
That's a big oft-overlooked point: Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party (and he didn't win on a very Republican platform), but the problem is that he also will likely not be in a position to contradict or overrule the party on those issues (or terribly inclined to do so in the first place).
The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.
> Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party
Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
<The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.>
Did you forget that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate until 2011? In fact, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until February of 2010.
Yes, they controlled it and then lost it. As opposed to controlling and maintaining. Doesn't that speak to a growing disconnect between them and the people voting on those seats (phrased as such to acknowledge both political changes and redistricting ones)?
Live somewhere like CA? Hard to see the state government or Supreme Court rolling things back too terribly. Health insurance if you don't have a good job would be a big question mark, would be nice to see the state pick that up.
Live in a state where the legislature is inclined to pass laws against your sexuality, religion, etc? That's a much more vulnerable position.
IMO a much larger problem than Trump is the structural favoritism in the American political system towards less-populated areas. This has a lot to do with how Obama's last term was largely sabotaged as well, after all.
That "structural favouritism towards less populated areas" is a very old design feature of American democracy. Without it, everywhere but a small band in each coast would become politically irrelevant, much like it's already ignored by the media.
Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind.
Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system?
Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done.
(And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
She campaigned for the electoral vote, not for the popular vote.
You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
In what way am I spamming, and in what way is pointing out that a generation-long shift to the Right is going to be the result of this election via the SCOTUS?
It's true, but at the end of the day you can already see that we're not going to do a damned meaningful thing about it whoever gets elected. The kinds of changes needed are not going to come about in a timely fashion, and when we start to move, it will be far too late (if it isn't already). On that point at least, our fate is sealed.
LGBT people, of which there are many here, have every reason to be afraid. Mike Pence has been vocal about his feelings w.r.t. how these people should be "treated".
And with the ability to set a Justice and a party dominated House and Senate, it does not look very good for "checks and balances" over the next 4 years.
And that of course assumes you're not subject to deportation for whatever reason. If Trump keeps any of his campaign promises we will be seeing many people forced out of the country. No idea what the extent of that will be, and at least some people here are first generation and claim to be anchors.
How did you handle permanent residency requirements for your wife?
I'm a Danish citizen, with the fiancé being a US citizen - and my understanding is that it wouldn't be easy for us to live in Denmark due to us having an unreasonable burden in demonstrating attachment to Denmark vs the US (https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/07/nye-regler-famili...) --- and with the president-elect having talked about pausing legal immigration for 1-2 years it makes for pretty scary times as my employer currently is applying for PERM status for me (meaning things could be paused randomly by the president - and with no where for us to go but maybe Canada/other European countries)
She's doesn't hold a permanent visa yet. It needs renewal every year, and after 5 years, she just needs to apply for a permanent one. We were lucky, since I have 3 kids from a previous relationship, so my attachment to Denmark is nonnegotiable. It took 5 months for our family reunification visa to go through.
In regards to your visa in the US, I think you should just wait it out. I doubt it'll get paused overnight, since the business impacts would be too great.
I think the biggest obstacle was for my wife to connect with other Danish women. Basically how to find friends, since social norms and culture is different.
That lasted 6 months, and she now has a big group of friends consisting of expats/danes.
Job opportunities are very good, especially if you work within healthcare, engineering or similar fields. There's a shortage in the workforce for highly qualified workers.
Pretty good. Lot's of opportunity for an American. Cost of living and taxes are very high, but then there is of course public healthcare, schools and education paid by taxes.
I can only speak for myself having lived in Copenhagen/Boston/NYC; cost of living is lower in Copenhagen, but so are salaries, expect a huge cut in pay as well as on your ability to live a comfortable life on a tech salary.
In NYC I can do a normal sit down lunch at $40 multiple times a week, without really batting an eye - whereas that would be painful in Denmark - on the plus side you usually have catered lunch which quality, choice and taste wise is not nearly as good, but significantly cheaper and with it being better for team work within the company.
For health care you should expect longer lines and significant delays in case you have a non-urgent issue; whereas that in NYC is something you can handle easily by setting up an appointment on Zocdoc so that you can see a specialist the next day - with it being covered by your health insurance.
On a NYC tech salary I tend to buy gadgets / items as often as I want, if the cost is below maybe $200, in Denmark that threshold is more like $60.
Vacation policies are generally substantially better in Denmark; and workload also being significantly lower.
Healthcare in Denmark is just fine in my opinion. We also hold a private insurance through work.
What is it you feel you need to wait for?
Also, in regards to salary: Yes, it's lower overall. But it's still high, especially in the tech sector. I get paid roughly the same as my US counterparts (we have offices in Copenhagen and New York).
It's tough for me to say - I've generally been doing 40-70 hours a week in NYC, and average in Copenhagen is more like 35 (defacto); In NYC I'm expected - more or less - to be available 24/7 incase of outage / stability issues, wrt my company, whereas it in Denmark is more about the client/company adjusting to your work schedule, and them living with potential outages.
Suffice to say not exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom for all. But it might work for white techno elites for whom being not in US/UK and writing web apps is all they want.
It's also the same if you get government benefits. If your wealth exceeds 10.000 DKK, you will have to use your own money to get by, until you run out.
If you're in tech, Sweden is a more attractive opportunity. It's pretty similar to the Netherlands culture wise, but with a much bigger and faster moving tech scene.
That said, any in that line up will be a bit of a culture shock coming from the US.
Agreed on the culture-shock. None of it will be too bad, probably, but there are enough little differences that it'll take a while to adjust, and not all people can/will manage it.
Source: Scottish, moved to Finland.
(Biggest pain-points for me: the Finnish language, and the brutal winters.)
If I'm programmer/developer looking for job in Sweden where can I find offers? How do you feel about taxes in Sweden? Aren't they very high in nordic countries?
I'm in Norway. And yes, taxes are high, but then again, they really aren't.
I think when I did the math, the taxes weren't really all that much higher than the taxes + health insurance costs in the states. It feels more like I'm paying a tax instead of outright fees for some things. Some I don't notice as much - such as the 25% VAT, mostly because it is included in the listed price.
Cost of living is high here, but Sweden is supposedly cheaper. Enough that there is a bus that goes over the border for Norwegians to shop.
That does not offset it at all. Unless you've got a ridiculously strong character, or a group of friends that will force you to do something with them, I wouldn't recommend it. Or at least have a backup plan if you start going crazy by November.
Copenhagen and Amsterdam are incredible places to live, and Amsterdam in particular has the benefit of a population which overwhelmingly speaks English, and is... a little less depressive than the Danish.
Glad you like it, I think it's a fantastic city to be in if you have a good job. Of course, you won't make insane amounts of money like in London or the US but since you're European I guess you already have a similar mindset.
This is what I like over here:
- Big city but you can walk almost everywhere
- Weather is great
- Airport is 20min subway from city centre
- People are friendly, most speak some sort of english
- Tech scene is getting better every year
- No gentrification yet
There are advantages on being on central or northern europe instead, but if I was in my 20s I would definitely come to Lisbon.
Very true. I run my own business and so get the best of both worlds (UK salary, Lisbon cost of living) but it would be a harder choice if I was in my twenties and earning locally. I sincerely hope that will change for the better over the next few years as the Lisbon tech scene continues to mature.
I'm Portuguese and live near Lisbon (and used to work for a startup in Lisbon). If you're looking for high paying jobs, look elsewhere, as developer jobs here are around 1500€-1800€ / month (* 14 months, after taxes), way below what people are getting paid in other countries.
However, if you decide to live outside of Lisbon where rents are very high, that amount of money is enough for you to live well and even save some money if you're somewhat frugal. Also, the weather is usually quite nice here, and if you're into that kind of things, there's a booming tech scene is Lisbon (web summit is here for this week).
Unfortunately, most of the jobs people take here are on outsourcing companies, but there is an increasing number of jobs available on local startups. If you're planning to move here, check jobs in http://landing.jobs/ (mostly startups).
Why throw in 'whites' like it's some derogatory adjective? Are bitter uneducated blacks or hispanics preferable? Besides that, people without a college degree are not necessarily stupid or not allowed to have a voice.
I'm not throwing anything in, I'm just describing the relevant demographic that's been unable to accept that Obama wasn't a "secret muslim" or "not really american" or some similar horseshit.
"attractive for the combination of proximity, and cultural/linguistic similarities... There is something to be said for not having to deal with the ... insane levels of violence too."
If you just take the above elements of your reasoning, you've just described White flight.
I mean, if there was a State in the US where guns were realistically outlawed I'd move there too. Implying that is "white" flight is implying that white people are not major perpetrators of gun violence in America, which simply isn't true.
Gun violence in the US is a major problem and our gun ownership and sales policies are at the heart of it. I've considered moving my family away from it long before this horrifying outcome.
The murder rate for whites in the US (i.e. the rate at which whites are murdered) is 2.5 per 100,000 much lower than the overall murder rate of 5.2 per 100,000. This is still higher than most of the West, e.g. 70% higher than Canada. But not the "extreme levels" you referred to earlier.
And you didn't mention guns before, I'm assuming you don't really only care about violence that comes out of the barrel of a gun, and you're just adding this now to avoid discussing the link between race and crime.
I'm not saying from it, although I think that it's not difficult to demonstrate that a disenfranchised group with poor economic prospects tends to self-radicalize.
I don't view a ton of difference between extremist terrorist conscription and, say, gang violence.
I think many of the same triggers are exploited. And you see those same triggers at play in traditionally white "militia" folks as well.
"There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites..."
This is exactly the sentiment that has brought us to this point. Either you are tolerant, inclusive or you are not. Try respecting the thoughts and options of others instead of leveling insults. Equality demands that people that differ from you still get a voice.
Just forget Europe. It's ridden with socialists and laws slowing business to a halt. Add a failing currency to that cocktail and you have a failing economy. Of the whole of Europe, only Switzerland is somewhat attractive.
That's an odd way to put it. To counterbalance, europe in general is far less litigious and you get public healthcare. Come to to northern europe and you get a stable, very non-corrupt governance and a highly educated workforce.
US has huge internal markets - I would see this as the main benefit. Otherwise than that, if you make an actual good product, know marketing and are not terribly dependent on US VC money (which is hardly the only source of capital) I fail to to see the problem.
Sure, there are laws for holidays and such but that does not limit business, IMO, only the amount of arbitrary power employers have over their employees. It does not limit global market opportunities in any way.
It would be harder to launch a service like Uber though that tries to take on entrenched incumbent local players. Target global b2b or consumer markets and the problem goes away.
All of this is my personal understanding, and I might be wrong. If so, then please educate me with countering facts.
Canada has public healthcare as well, although it's probably worse than US paid for healtchcare. Public healthcare usually means long queues and substandard health services. It's okay if you're poor, but that's why in Europre we also paying for private health insurance when we can afford it. In the US you have the option not to pay for health insurance, in Europe you have to pay for it regardless of what you get in return. France is probably different, but Franch healthcare is going broke so it will only get worse if they don't do something about it soon enough.
Most of the big business in Europe is either 1. American 2. state owned or 3. companies founded before before WW1. It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. You would get kocked down by taxes and regulations before you know it.
All healthcare systems have their faults. It isn't like folks never wait for care in the US: Some folks wait months for a neurologist, for example, mostly becasue they are booked up.
I'm in Norway. There is public health care. Sometimes there is a wait, sometimes not. You have the option to pay for private care, if you want. But I'm never going to have to worry about not being able to afford care. This alone makes a huge lifestyle change. Not just for me: But for children and lots of other folks as well.
In addition, some caveats of care are much better here. You can choose the cheaper but better outcomed care option. For example, they send a nurse out to someone's house up to 6 times a day before someone is eligible for a nursing home. Even if you live in a secluded spot on a mountain or island. Why? It is cheaper and folks tend to live longer this way.
Home health is a significant practice in the US. I can't give a pithy summary of it, but Medicare pays for it in many situations where a nursing home is not medically necessary.
You're not eligible for the home health benefit if you need more than part-time or "intermittent" skilled nursing care.
Now, the mouse over says that 'part time or intermittent' means less than 7 days each week or less than 8 hours each day over a period of 21 days or less - unless you have special circumstances. In other words, sure, as long as it is temporary.In addition, you have to be homebound, only leaving for short, infrequent things for medical care, religious services, and the like.
I'm not even sure most folks know that stuff exists judging by how many people take care of their elderly parents. Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Here it isn't a short term situation. You get a nurse for up to 6 visits a day, even if you need all 6 visits every day for 10 years. In fact, you aren't eligible for a nursing home unless your needs exceed this. It isn't so much if you are homebound, but that you need the medical care (though you might be mostly homebound with that).
Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Reimbursement for a stay in a nursing home would also be subject to a doctor deeming it necessary (and also whatever rules Medicare has about it), home care is just a lower level of care in that sense.
I wasn't really trying to compare the programs, I just saw the possibility in your comment that were not very aware of it in the US.
I probably compare out of habit. I'm American and am immigrant here in Norway - I note differences, and the stuff that is similar isn't so noteworthy. Neither system is perfect.
Reimbursement for the nursing homes... admittedly, most of what I know about payment for american nursing homes is probably rumor, "friend of a friend lost had to sell the house for the nursing home payment" sort of thing. Didn't pay much attention, then was taught the cost in class here in Norway.
Yeah, coverage is limited. There are a wide variety of long term care options that can easily run into thousands per month, so someone with a fixed income that won't cover that will end up selling assets until they qualify for Medicaid.
" It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. "
I'm pretty sure the market is filled with unregulated niches that don't require you to shift the balance of the universe to be successful.
Yes, US seems to be winning in terms of environment which facilitates the rapid growth of paradigm shifting companies. I did not claim otherwise - I merely countered the proposal that it would be counterproductive to try to do business in Europe altogether. Not as inducive to growth is a different thing from disabling profitable companies altogether.
I'm hard pressed to quantify the quality of public healthcare. Patient outcomes are a different thing than what the service feels like. I agree, it's sometimes painstakingly hard to find good healthcare but in my experience that applies to both public and private as equally - the more rare the condition, the harder it is to find a helpful diagnosis and a plan to proceed.
The professional capability of the tending doctor is the most critical factor. I've met outstanding professionals in the public space and private clinic doctors who have been sloppy and unattentive - and vise versa.
Of course, if budgets strain, the quality of care decreases.
Only if you speak German and are able to deal with their not very welcoming nature, you might stand a chance. I know a couple of expats who had everything in their favor (language, skills, local connections) and after 5-10 years still decided to move to Austria and Germany.
Honestly it's the latter that scares me, given Europe's history, and the likelihood of massive migration from the Middle East and Africa in the coming decades.
Correct me if I'm wrong but lots of people here seem to think that Europe is some kind of progressive booming social-democratic economy/society with free health/education and all. The trend here IMHO is exactly the same trend that put Trump in office - only in Europe (having some more historic experience with such things) we do things a bit more hardcore. Extreme right wings (fascists) are getting more and more power, nationalistic views abound in all states, welfare state is being dismantled, etc. Our 'Mexicans' equivalent are people fleeing from war zones (Syria, Afganistan, etc) that get dumped in buffer Southern states (mainly Italy/Greece). Economy is in shambles for most countries (add in the terrible lock-ins caused by common currency). Each state is mostly looking after its own interests when there are big issues (war) at EU periphery.
...
Do I need to go on?
Fleeing USA for EU is like jumping a flaming ship for a ship that is half-sunk.
It did happen with Vietnam draft evaders. There is an entire generation of former Americans born in Australia and Canada: like Mel Gibson and Stewart Butterfield of Flickr/Slack.
Also with those fleeing communism as refugees or asylum seekers - i'm born to one of those.
I don't doubt that some people will move, but it won't be to the extent of previous migrations. You have a better chance of changing and fixing the USA from the inside.
And somehow I have little sympathy for people who want to leave the US for political reasons but have a problem with countries where wealth is distributed more evenly.
If you're a software engineer working in Canada, you can get a 50% pay bump just by crossing the border.
My recommendation is get a remote job for a smaller company that will pay you in US dollars. After converting to Canadian dollars you'll be about 30% ahead of your Canadian peers but without having to pay Silicon Valley living costs or immigrate into a country crazy enough to elect Trump. If you can live away from Vancouver and Toronto you can really make that stretch.
By the way, if you want to be 300% ahead of your peers, get that remote job, sell your house, close your bank accounts in Canada, and seek non-resident status. Travel the world and bank that extra $70000 a year that would have gone to taxes. Ten years doing that and you can probably retire.
Speaking as someone who did that, and is amazed that it doesn't occur to more people. It's not for everyone, probably most people can't just up and move, their spouse likely can't get a job elsewhere that easily, and there is the question of what to do for the kid's education. If you're single though, you're crazy to stay.
There are three major things that hinder Canadian startups:
- Small internal market
- Less risk-taking atmosphere and attitude
- Lack of money (see point above)
If you're a startup founder and moving its these three points that'll impact you the most. If you're an employee, the significant salary disparity and the number of employment opportunities will be the biggest factor at play.
That all said, I loved staying in Toronto, and I met and worked with exceptionally strong engineers there; it's my plan to move back. YMMV depending on the company you join, and one (sad) issue is that the job pool is thinner - so jumping from one great startup to another is dramatically harder than SF.
I could never move there because the Taco Bell's come with french fries in their combo meals. Nothing I encountered shocked my cultural sensibilities more.
Canada is not about to be run by a bullying sex pest and his running mate, the man who thinks the way to cure gay people is electroshock therapy. There is literally no comparison. Refugees do not care about whether they could earn more.
I traveled around Europe and South America for five months recently (digital nomad)... The common question was "...why do you think the US has the technology and opportunities that it does...". My honest answer... Less regulation and an attitude of do what it takes to be successful in the early days. The hustle.
> You know that most people don't care about earning SV salary right?
This does not apply only to high-income Americans. In fact, the downsides of a reduced salary are much worse for people with average and low incomes.
It's become pretty obvious since the 2008 recession that people of low incomes, or even average incomes, have few means to control the circumstances of their lives. They are at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control. Another recession would victimize them again, and they would be powerless to improve their circumstances.
Americans moving to Canada, whether or not they are high-paid tech workers, will almost certainly take a lower salary in Canada than the one they have in the US, for doing the same job. The safety net in Canada isn't that much better than the one in the US, aside from the obvious exception of free health care. So, a lower salary would be a pretty big sacrifice to make, because it would worsen the problems I mentioned above.
To paraphrase: A society with less internal division seems appealing until you realise is has redistributive taxes that give people the chance to say no to explotative wages.
I would say that the US is pretty much unique in this respect, and you would experience the same tradeoffs in most (all ?) of Western countries outside of it.
Even in countries where gross salaries are comparable, you would pay a ton more taxes.
Personally is a tradeoff I'm willing to make, as I believe what is sacrificed in financial terms is returned as increased social peace, but of course it's a matter of preference.
That's very true. Not for any political reasons, but I've always wanted to work in the EU (I lived there several times but was working) but everytime I look at salaries in Berlin or the NL or similar, it occurs to me that'd it be a better idea to just work here and save for a few more years, and then go there without the need to get a job.
I'd break even financially and would have more time to learn the language (though I suppose working in a foreign office would be a great way to learn the language, at least once the basics are obtained).
The situation for devs in Canada is so much worse than in an American tech hub. It's actually pretty ridiculous. Everyone I know in Canada is intent on eventually relocating to NYC/SF/Seattle/LA because the jump in QOL is so huge.
Canada seems appealing to Americans until they show up and realize other than healthcare, it's pretty much exactly the same place.
Want it to be like redneck country? Go to Alberta. Want to be like the West coast? Vancouver. Like New York, try New York lite, though Canada calls it Toronto.
The following things changed for me going from Canada to the US, there are more American Flags.
Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada and I mostly don't miss living in Bay Area, but most of my friends lament the fact that their salary and career opportunities are a joke compared to what they could have in the U.S. (even adjusting for cost of living).