A Good Country to Emigrate To?

[IStateYourName]

One American here, tired of the right-wingers and perpetual dysfunction of American politics--not to mention paying for a global empire he doesn't want.

So for you non-Americans out there...tell me about your country.  Try to sell me on it.  Go on...

[IStateYourName]

Clarification (since I can't edit posts yet): I'm not really looking for a political debate here...more like compare-and-contrast of how various countries around the world handle these sorts of things, as told from folks who actually live under the systems (as opposed to American talking heads who spin things to fit their own agendas).

[Sho]

Well, I'm gonna go ahead and say that every country has it's dysfunctions…but if you're looking for a more liberal country than America, there's always Canada.

But if you look at the Toronto mayor, you'll see that no country is without its dysfunctions. Really, pretty much every country has good things and bad things, and you're never going to find a flawless match. That being said? I enjoyed living in Canada (lived there for almost five years), though wasn't a huge fan of the taxes they require. Free healthcare was nice, if you were a citizen.

But honestly - few passports are more valuable than American passports partially because of the reason that you can say how much you hate the country/its politics. In short, America allows a degree of political freedom that many other countries do not (though there are some out there).

If you're serious about this, I'd suggest doing some research into the EU, England, and Canada. Though they all have their own problems, as well.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

New Zealand seems nice.  I looked a little into that but it's pretty far.

[Valthazar]

I lived in Europe several years ago, currently live in the US.  Like Sho said, there are pros and cons to every country.

In reality, this issue is heavily tied to your socioeconomic position. 

All things considered though, even if you are unable to move, I'd say you're pretty lucky to be an American, compared to many other places in the world.

[Hemingway]

The nordic countries generally rank among the best places in the world to live by several standards - but they also tend to be hellishly expensive. The issue is compounded by the fact it can be difficult to find a job nowadays, at least in some places. I'd probably look at closer places. Like Sho said, there's Canada.

[Oniya]

I've had friends who have been interested in emigrating before.  I cannot stress heavily enough the need to research this thoroughly.  It's not a simple matter of packing your bags, walking up to the customs desk at the border and renouncing your citizenship.  Most countries (Canada included) require some indication that you are going to be a productive member of society (i.e., that you've got the possibility of employment), and there are months if not years-worth of paperwork that has to be processed.  Even in the case of marriage, the red tape is daunting.  (As it turned out, one of my friends who was marrying a Canadian ended up with her fiance moving down to the US, and another of my friends was actually turned back at the border in the moving truck.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Don't know how invested you are in your chosen career, but some careers offer a great many chances to immigrate and travel abroad such as teachers and nurses.

[Valthazar]

Don't know how invested you are in your chosen career,sayiome careers offer a great many chances to immigrate and travel abroad such as teachers and nurses.

This isn't as easy as people think, unless you are already working for an American company that is looking for employees abroad.  I am not saying it is impossible, but if one is looking to emigrate and locate a job independently, they will actually likely be far better off investing that same amount of energy into finding a stable job with benefits in the US.

[Lux12]

Any Scandinavian country so long as you don't mind the frigid winters. I'm considering it myself.

[Deamonbane]

Brazil: Great country, great people, awesome landscapes, poor infrastructure, rotten politicians...

[jouzinka]

Czech republic. It sucks as much as it does everywhere else, if not more, but at least the chicks are hot. O8)

[gaggedLouise]

Any Scandinavian country so long as you don't mind the frigid winters. I'm considering it myself.

Ha! *looks around for snow, spotting only wet autumnal darkness* Some parts of western and southern Scandinavia - much of the coastal regions of Norway, for instance, and most of Denmark - get much more rain than snow in most winters. Though I'd recommend knowing how to drive in a snowy winter climate, if one were planning to use a car (highly useful considering the distances and the landscape).

Scandinavia is beautiful but expensive, and I definitely recommend trying to find somewhere to live before making the move - the urban property market here can feel a bit stuffed, it's not easy to find small and inexpensive apartments in big cities around here (if you have like half a million bucks ready to invest in a condo on arrival, then no problem...).

Also, be ready to learn the local language - we're good at English, some of us very good, and readily use it, but speaking the native tongue fluently opens up many more doors, and if planning to form a family then yes, absolutely... (Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are sort of mutually intelligible much of the time, at least with a bit of effort - Finnish is a completely different beast, it's not an Indo-European language at all, though Finland is culturally and socially solidly Scandinavian)

[Lazaria]

British expat here; good bits about the U.S and A?

Lower tax rate, chatty people, Mexican-American food, different cuisines, great future prospects (especially if you've studied and practice multinational auditing), constantly mistaken for a Harry Potter character, lovely weather and health coverage in case you're an independent contractor/didn't have access to medical insurance (now).

Not so good?

Crime rate (depending on where you live), easy access to guns (personal one for me, may not be for you), alarmingly divided populace (again depends on where you live or who you talk to). 

So in a nutshell I'll recommend what some folks have already mentioned; depends really on what you want to do and exactly what you are seeking. In my personal experience I've discovered even moving from one city to another (let alone switching states) can also help you meeting like minded individuals or finding what you call a 'place of belonging'. 

[Lux12]

Ha! *looks around for snow, spotting only wet autumnal darkness* Some parts of western and southern Scandinavia - much of the coastal regions of Norway, for instance, and most of Denmark - get much more rain than snow in most winters. Though I'd recommend knowing how to drive in a snowy winter climate, if one were planning to use a car (highly useful considering the distances and the landscape).

Scandinavia is beautiful but expensive, and I definitely recommend trying to find somewhere to live before making the move - the urban property market here can feel a bit stuffed, it's not easy to find small and inexpensive apartments in big cities around here (if you have like half a million bucks ready to invest in a condo on arrival, then no problem...).

Also, be ready to learn the local language - we're good at English, some of us very good, but speaking the native tongue fluently opens up many more doors, and if planning to form a family then yes, absolutely... (Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are sort of mutually intelligible much of the time, at least with a bit of effort - Finnish is a completely different beast, it's not an Indo-European language at all, though Finland is culturally and socially solidly Scandinavian)

I am just so sick of living in this hypocritical country with all of its little prejudices it tries to dress up nicely so no one will notice. It kills me to know that this country I live in was the one that inspired a wave of revolutions in the name of democracy and liberty and yet there are others with a better human rights record than this. I know not everyone in Scandinavia is running around raising tankards of mead to Thor or Ukko, but I get the impression there at least my paganism would be accepted for what it is. I may be a man but knowing that these countries have some of the best records on women's rights in the modern era is a major selling point for me. Not to mention that they seem to lack anything close to this irritating partisan divide we have here in the states. As far as wet autumnal darkness is concerned, I welcome it. I like walking in the rain. Especially after dark. Not even to any particular place. Just wandering about in the restful blackness with rhythm of the droplets falling from the sky is one of those little pleasures in life for me. At the risk of sounding stereotypically Gothic, I prefer to wake up to a gray sky and the soothing music of droplets falling from the heavens. Torrential  downpour or not, I prefer cloudy days. If it's cooler than the place I live now year round that's another plus because I simply cannot stand the heat especially if I'm trying to get to bed.  Not to mention that (and perhaps I'm dealing in stereotypes here), that the local music scene seems more to my liking. The idea that I might get Nightwish in fairly regular rotation on radio stations is something that would make me grin from ear to ear and probably cheer like  a madman if it were so in the states. If everything I heard is correct, the various countries up there in Scandinavia have had a fine tuned national healthcare service for some time. There me be worse places to live than the U.S. but I have grown so very sick of my homeland in so many ways.

[Valthazar]

Not to mention that they seem to lack anything close to this irritating partisan divide we have here in the states.

Like we discussed in the other thread, this should be no surprise, given the largely homogenous demographic of Scandinavian societies, as compared to the hugely diverse USA.

[Faustus]

I've had friends who have been interested in emigrating before.  I cannot stress heavily enough the need to research this thoroughly.  It's not a simple matter of packing your bags, walking up to the customs desk at the border and renouncing your citizenship.  Most countries (Canada included) require some indication that you are going to be a productive member of society (i.e., that you've got the possibility of employment), and there are months if not years-worth of paperwork that has to be processed.  Even in the case of marriage, the red tape is daunting.  (As it turned out, one of my friends who was marrying a Canadian ended up with her fiance moving down to the US, and another of my friends was actually turned back at the border in the moving truck.)

I cannot second or third this entire bit enough. As an individual working through the Immigration process myself, the entire thing is daunting. But if you truly want it, you will fight and struggle for it.

Even then, though, it takes a bit of a hope and a prayer.  :-\

[kylie]

        Are you talking about a place to plan to get a new citizenship, or just to live and work?  I wasn't really sure.

        It really depends what you're looking to do there, and what sort of resources and qualifications you have to begin with.  There are lots of interesting places for various tastes, but an American at the bottom in many of them, is only somewhat better than one at the bottom in the US.  It can be a very substantial "somewhat" if you're actually on the verge of losing everything, as you can probably get a roof over your head and at least some savings teaching.  Still, you want to know how your industry works there and where you fit into it.  That is, if you have time and contacts to find out.   

         It also depends what you want for a social life (or not).  Some of us are happy being hermits, some want a busy social life, and some really want a vibrant expat community of their own social class in town.  Those are very different sets of needs.  There are quite a few developing countries where you could live if you don't need some of them -- and some where you just couldn't.  Or...  I make very little money and this town bores me, but I pass the time mostly geeking out in some fashion.  I don't drink or knock myself out with weekend sports (though I could do those here), and I don't care so much if I blow a lot of time reading news or playing old strategy games (or the occasional good fit roleplay).  I don't eat myself too much about having limited face to face contact outside of my job.  There is also the question:  Are you going to the first place for it to be "the" place, or is it a stepping stone on the way to something better?  And there are a lot of other interests you might or might not want or need to have around. 

          So you might start with a more particular list of what is really important to you in a living situation.  Not every country will easily place you near all of them.  If you need to be in a bustling major city where you can buy English magazines and get Western fast food, or if you must have wired internet...  Or green space, or clear skies, or be allowed to drive yourself....  Or have public transit because you won't drive  yourself and don't like to walk for miles first...  All of those things will narrow it down at the level of whole countries or regions...

            But the map is not the territory.  It's great if you can skype with some people there or email, etc. -- But some things you will never appreciate until you go and try.  And what particular place and people you land in a country will affect your individual experience in huge ways that you might never have foreseen.   

[Retribution]

British expat here; good bits about the U.S and A?

Lower tax rate, chatty people, Mexican-American food, different cuisines, great future prospects (especially if you've studied and practice multinational auditing), constantly mistaken for a Harry Potter character, lovely weather and health coverage in case you're an independent contractor/didn't have access to medical insurance (now).

Not so good?

Crime rate (depending on where you live), easy access to guns (personal one for me, may not be for you), alarmingly divided populace (again depends on where you live or who you talk to). 

So in a nutshell I'll recommend what some folks have already mentioned; depends really on what you want to do and exactly what you are seeking. In my personal experience I've discovered even moving from one city to another (let alone switching states) can also help you meeting like minded individuals or finding what you call a 'place of belonging'.

I have never been out of this country, but my differing political opinions aside (am a life long gun owner) this seems to be a nice summary of the US. The divide in the populace to me seems to be the largest issue in the US. There is absolutely no live and let live from either side. But you were asking about other nations....

I have not been out of the country, but I have found traveling to other states is often times like visiting other countries. I have a pretty thick Ozark accent for example and way back in the day I dated a woman from New England. Do you know we actually had a little bit of a language barrier? Despite living in a northern state my family is from the Ozarks so I have a twang since you mimic what you hear. Hell, my own son has the same twang from growing up around me and if you go a bit further north I actually have problems understanding the people. So I go through all of this to illustrate a simple switch of state or region can make a vast difference.

Also as I read this thread and others of similar bent the impression I get is of back in the 60s. I have some vague recollections of the early 70s which were well in the shadow of the 60s. Living in a commune, going to see a guru all of those sorts of things were all in vogue. Seeking a place where ones enlightened views would be appreciated. But now, if you read or listen to anything those who lived in these sorts of communities have to say the gist is it was not all it was cracked up to be. We all have a tendency to chase Shangrala. Be careful, there is a lot of struggle in life and dealing with it is generally what life is about.

[Valthazar]

A few more considerations in making your decision:

1.  Unless you end up working for a globally-known European/Asian company overseas, or an American company with an overseas branch, you run the risk of having a diminished resume upon later return to the US.  There are certainly exceptions, but realize that unless you are planning to take on a well-known position overseas (such as an internationally-recognized teaching program, like what kylie mentioned), you'll basically be making your move permanent, and inadvertently losing the many opportunity perks of being an American - which there are many.

2.  Realize that Europe has a tremendous number of people struggling with poverty and unemployment, much the same way people are here.  Also consider that unless you have highly marketable skills, that many European employers feel no shame in favoring their own nationality over a foreigner - especially when it comes to hiring a graduate from a European university over an American one.  As fashionable as it is to diss the US nowadays, you would be incredibly hard-pressed to find another country as tolerant and accepting.

My honest opinion is that this concept of emigrating from the US is just a cool thing to say these days.  If you put in as much energy and creativity into doing all of the above, in the United States, you'll find yourself a quality of life for you and your family that exceeds many in Europe, and that's a fact.

[IStateYourName]

A few more considerations in making your decision:

...

My honest opinion is that this concept of emigrating from the US is just a cool thing to say these days.  If you put in as much energy and creativity into doing all of the above, in the United States, you'll find yourself a quality of life for you and your family that exceeds many in Europe, and that's a fact.

You and some others have raised some excellent points, so I'll speak to my reasons for wanting to leave the U.S.  It's not so much where it is now (although it's already fallen a couple notches from where it was circa 1970), but where it's headed.  I'm seeing a lot of parallels between America today and the Weimar Republic of Germany.  Persistent, large deficits, an increasingly ineffective and bumbling government, a trenchant right-wing activism, declining civil liberties, increased corporatism and militarism.  Minus some of the racial/ethnic chauvinism, much of the rhetoric from the American Right parallels that of the National Socialists before their rise to power.  The American Right is more concerned with expanding corporate power than state power...but in the final analysis, corporations and state are more or less joined at the hip these days anyway.  And we've already seen the classes of people the Right here wants to vilify--rather than Jews, it's working-class people, the disabled, ethnic minorities.  The scapegoating is there, as it was in Germany as the Thirties progressed and Hitler rose out of the beer halls.

Perhaps you disagree with my prognosis, and that's fine.  I'm not going to claim the outcome I've outlined is certain; no one can predict the future with total accuracy, including me.  But at the very least, I suspect you'll concede what I've discussed is a rather unsettling trend.  And when you've got something like that brewing...let's just say it was much easier for a Jew to emigrate from Germany in the late 1920s than in 1940.  And even if I'm not in the American Right's groups of Untermensch, you can bet there'll be migration restrictions and capital controls and all manner of legal measures taken to thwart anyone who wants to do the unpatriotic act of emigration.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, what emigration-related research have you already done?

[IStateYourName]

Out of curiosity, what emigration-related research have you already done?

I've looked at statistics like economic freedom




press freedom


and other human rights indicators. 


Places that are doing at least decently economically



with a sensible balance between the State, the corporation and the individual, that offer universal healthcare or a close derivative thereof.  I won't go into details, but I've already taken steps to move my financial life offshore. 

Let's just say I've done a lot of empirical research.  My purpose for starting this thread was anecdotal research, to get some human impressions of life in other nations beyond statistics.  Numbers are important, but there's some things that can't be plotted onto a chart.

[Valthazar]

Perhaps you disagree with my prognosis, and that's fine.  I'm not going to claim the outcome I've outlined is certain; no one can predict the future with total accuracy, including me.  But at the very least, I suspect you'll concede what I've discussed is a rather unsettling trend.  And when you've got something like that brewing...let's just say it was much easier for a Jew to emigrate from Germany in the late 1920s than in 1940.  And even if I'm not in the American Right's groups of Untermensch, you can bet there'll be migration restrictions and capital controls and all manner of legal measures taken to thwart anyone who wants to do the unpatriotic act of emigration.

There may be some truth to your predictions, but you are looking at it from a very linear perspective, which unilaterally vilifies the Right.  Someone of a different political persuasion could easily reach your same conclusions, while vilifying the Left.  I am of neither perspective myself, which is perhaps why I see this as being a bias in your outlook.

Even if your conclusions are validated, how does emigrating from the US benefit you?  Strong European economies such as Germany and the UK, are losing their sovereignty to the EU, analogous to the manner in which authority is increasingly being localized in the American federal government.  The EU is taking the same ill-fated financial path you describe about the US.

You are unnecessarily turning the issue of emigration into a political one.

With regard to your research data:

1)  How is prison population a representation of human rights?  India has less than 50 prisoners per 100,000 as compared to the US which has 700+ per 100,000.  This is supposed to lead us to what conclusion?

2)  Economic freedom seems to show the US as being the best of the lot, based on your figure.

I won't go into details, but I've already taken steps to move my financial life offshore.

Please take my advice when I say that unless you are already secure in your employment, and have significant portfolio assets, that this is an incredibly bad idea.

[Oniya]

Okay, but what about looking into the actual process of emigrating?  Have you looked into various countries' immigration policies, what visas are available, what the naturalization processes are, etc.?

Just to be clear, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.  Just making sure you have a reasonable grasp of what you're doing.

[IStateYourName]

There may be some truth to your predictions, but you are looking at it from a very linear perspective, which unilaterally vilifies the Right.  Someone of a different political persuasion could easily reach your same conclusions, while vilifying the Left.  I am of neither perspective myself, which is perhaps why I see this as being a bias in your outlook.

Perhaps.  But most of the impetus for a corporate state, extraordinary renditions, endless wars, private prisons, militarism, suppression of workers' rights, etc. comes from the Right.  At least as of today.  I'll concede the possibility that the Left could be co-opted into this down the road.

Even if your conclusions are validated, how does emigrating from the US benefit you?  Strong European economies such as Germany and the UK, are losing their sovereignty to the EU, analogous to the manner in which authority is increasingly being localized in the American federal government.  The EU is taking the same ill-fated financial path you describe about the US.

Perhaps.  But at least the EU is taking steps to solve the financial problem.  And I don't see the EU trying to maintain networks of secret prisons and garrisons around the world. 

You are unnecessarily turning the issue of emigration into a political one.

When the secret police break down your door in the middle of the night, what is it if not a political issue?

With regard to your research data:

1)  How is prison population a representation of human rights?  India has less than 50 prisoners per 100,000 as compared to the US which has 700+ per 100,000.  This is supposed to lead us to what conclusion?

I see an inverse correlation.  Countries with low prison populations apparently have ways of dealing with dissenters and those who don't "fit in" by means other than the gulag, or manage to avoid the need by policies respecting the right of dissent and avoiding marginalization of large segments of the population.  In my estimation, a high prison population is a bellwether of a regime that has significant social and political problems and chooses to deal with them by the brute force of mass incarceration.  It's certainly not a perfect measure, but I do see correlation there.  It's a valid "one of several" indicator.

2)  Economic freedom seems to show the US as being the best of the lot, based on your figure.

I would say it's more the US being "top-tier."  We're not number one anymore in much of anything except total GDP (most of which goes to the top 2% anyway), total military forces, and percentage of the population in prison.

Please take my advice when I say that unless you are already secure in your employment, and have significant portfolio assets, that this is an incredibly bad idea.

Why?  Even if you're moderately optimistic about America's future, the U.S. is hardly the market with the highest growth potential in the world, or even close to that.  Even the sunnier projections call for U.S. GDP to average about 2 to 3.5% growth over the next decade.  Most to all of this will go to the super-elite, not you or I anyway.

[IStateYourName]

Okay, but what about looking into the actual process of emigrating?  Have you looked into various countries' immigration policies, what visas are available, what the naturalization processes are, etc.?

Just to be clear, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.  Just making sure you have a reasonable grasp of what you're doing.

Yes.  To oversimplify a bit, it's all a question of money.  Bring cash (i.e., a viable business) to the table, and most countries will open the door for you.  Of course, walking through that door involves gobs of paperwork and bureaucracy.  But the door is open.  At least for the near future.  After the fecal matter hits the revolving oscillator here in the U.S., I figure the rest of the world might adopt a more closed approach to would-be American migrants.

[Oniya]

Bring cash (i.e., a viable business) to the table, and most countries will open the door for you.  Of course, walking through that door involves gobs of paperwork and bureaucracy.

And do you have that?

[Valthazar]

What is this "secret police" or "secret garrisons" you are referring to?  Are you referring to Guantanamo or the conspiracy theory involving FEMA camps?

Emigration is a significant life decision, and at least for me, I wouldn't make such a life-changing decision based on what some guy on YouTube says.

Why?  Even if you're moderately optimistic about America's future, the U.S. is hardly the market with the highest growth potential in the world, or even close to that.  Even the sunnier projections call for U.S. GDP to average about 2 to 3.5% growth over the next decade.  Most to all of this will go to the super-elite, not you or I anyway.

Oh, are you talking about simply buying foreign stocks?  That's a completely different matter, and probably a smart thing to include, along with American stocks.

I thought you were referring to physically wiring your cash to a foreign bank.  I can certainly understand why Americans concerned about the value of the dollar may choose to purchase Gold.  But transferring your assets from US dollars to alternate currency is a fruitless endeavor, since US dollars, even today, is the standard for international trade.  The only reason I can see this being advantageous is if you are extremely wealthy, and seeking some form of tax incentive through this practice. 

If you are referring to purchasing physical assets (like a house) in other countries, this again is a fruitless endeavor.  You are not factoring in local taxes in that area, let alone maintenance costs.

[IStateYourName]

Let's just say I'm taking an unconventional approach which leverages Information Age technology.  I'd rather not go into details.  I freely stipulate my approach may fail.  Then again, the same can be said for any worthwhile endeavor...if something is worth doing, there's always the chance it goes sideways.  No disrespect intended to anyone, but I'd rather confine the discussion to life experiences, healthcare, economics, etc. in countries other than the U.S. 

[Valthazar]

I think you are painting an overly rosy image of European countries, when in reality, there are people struggling there just like here in the US.  I lived in UK for a while, and while there are certainly many advantages - universal healthcare being one of them - the society wasn't a catch-all paradise on Earth by any stretch. 

In my opinion, responsible expansion of Medicare to more of the population, as opposed to the ACA, would quickly bump up our quality of life to be on par with Europe.

[IStateYourName]

In my opinion, responsible expansion of Medicare to more of the population, as opposed to the ACA, would quickly bump up our quality of life to be on par with Europe.

I'll agree with you on this one.  The ACA is a giant corporate subsidy, nothing more.  And we have way too much of that sort of thing as-is.

[Lux12]

A few more considerations in making your decision:

1.  Unless you end up working for a globally-known European/Asian company overseas, or an American company with an overseas branch, you run the risk of having a diminished resume upon later return to the US.  There are certainly exceptions, but realize that unless you are planning to take on a well-known position overseas (such as an internationally-recognized teaching program, like what kylie mentioned), you'll basically be making your move permanent, and inadvertently losing the many opportunity perks of being an American - which there are many.

2.  Realize that Europe has a tremendous number of people struggling with poverty and unemployment, much the same way people are here.  Also consider that unless you have highly marketable skills, that many European employers feel no shame in favoring their own nationality over a foreigner - especially when it comes to hiring a graduate from a European university over an American one.  As fashionable as it is to diss the US nowadays, you would be incredibly hard-pressed to find another country as tolerant and accepting.

My honest opinion is that this concept of emigrating from the US is just a cool thing to say these days.  If you put in as much energy and creativity into doing all of the above, in the United States, you'll find yourself a quality of life for you and your family that exceeds many in Europe, and that's a fact.

I would argue otherwise. It's not merely "fashionable", it's based in realities that people like to ignore about this country. People who say it's just "fashionable" ignore real problems.  That "love America or stfu" attitude is one of the reasons I don't like this country. This cheerleading for the old red, white, and blue has screwed this country plenty of times before.  To be frank I don't like nationalism and wherever I live is a matter of convenience for now. Nevermind that there's still a shocking amount of systemic sexism in this country. The only rough spots in Europe I've ever heard of are in the eastern area. Greece, the Balkans in general, Russia, etc. I am so very sick of being associated with the nut bars in government by proximity. That and Americans tend to get up in arms about anything in the media whether its truly offensive or not. Not to mention that this country seems to love hypocrisy like nothing else. So many people here talk about freedom and liberty, but they're perfectly willing to try to deny it to so many. Granted things may be improving, but the very fact that it's just catching up to other countries sickens me. Not to mention that just about every bit of info I have found including what people have said in here seem to only serve to validate what I have said. I am not a nationalist, but at first I was thinking of just moving to Seattle or somewhere in Oregon for awhile, but I am just so sick of all the crap that goes on in this country. I could go on for a lengthy period of time about the systemic problems here.

[Valthazar]

I would argue otherwise. It's not merely "fashionable", it's based in realities that people like to ignore about this country. People who say it's just "fashionable" ignore real problems.  That "love America or stfu" attitude is one of the reasons I don't like this country.

If you want to emigrate the US, then by all means go for it.  What is ridiculous to me are people who like the "concept" of emigration and yet have absolutely no game plan for accomplishing it.  And yet, they continue to recycle the same lines about how bad things are here.

I presented legitimate hurdles in finding employment abroad.  You have addressed none of those.  If I recall, Oniya also presented legitimate visa and immigration challenges.

Given that, I empathize with your criticism of the United States.  Let us be happy that we live in a country that gives us the freedom to openly criticize our government - and if we realize we have no viable means of emigrating, let us proactively work towards improving our home in our own vision.

[IStateYourName]

If you want to emigrate the US, then by all means go for it.  What is ridiculous to me are people who like the "concept" of emigration and yet have absolutely no game plan for accomplishing it.  And yet, they continue to recycle the same lines about how bad things are here.

You have a point.  But it comes down to how bad things become.  We're certainly far from it at the moment, but there comes a time when you simply have to leave.  If things in America do go seriously sideways--and I think this is distinct possibility; when republics turn into empires and go bankrupt, things rarely turn out well, there are only degrees of bad, worse and downright horrible--then you're going to just have to go for it.  If you were a Jew in the early Thirties in Germany, would you bemoan your lack of a "game plan for accomplishing" emigration and sit on your hands, or would you be on the next thing smoking out of town?

By all means, emigration from the land of one's birth ought to be carefully planned and executed where possible.  But I don't aim to wait until the strict capital controls and exit taxes are imposed.  They're already building more fences and barriers across both our northern and southern borders.  Where you used to be able to visit Mexico and Canada without passports, now you have to have one.  The handwriting is on the wall.  Ignore it at your peril.

[Valthazar]

They're already building more fences and barriers across both our northern and southern borders.  Where you used to be able to visit Mexico and Canada without passports, now you have to have one.

Could you please provide a reputable source suggesting that there is any indication that the United States government has a vested interest in "fencing in" our population?  If you truly believe that things are this bad in the US, then please emigrate already, instead of sitting behind a computer in the US, spewing conspiracy theory lines.

I have a college friend who emigrated and is a Dutch citizen now after getting a job with the Dutch government.  The last I have heard, he is very happy over there - but he is an incredibly hardworking guy, and it did not come easily.

From observing the immigration process my parents went through to come to the US, it is not a simple process.  It requires a tremendous amount of paperwork and mental headaches - as well as luck.  If you really have the energy and commitment for doing that, you're much better off being proactive and working your butt off here in the states, to carve yourself out a great job with benefits.

[Retribution]

This is not a statement one way or the other pro or con, but what I find interesting about such discussions is that there are too sides that are polar opposites that have similar points of view for solution. I think it is safe to say those who say the US sucks I am getting out of here in this thread lean left. But on the right there are those who make the exact same arguments and come to the same conclusions about having to leave before it gets much worse. Or for example the show on TV Dooms Day Preppers is another example of survivalists or what have you thinking they must prepare for the end because things are getting so bad.

Like I said not a statement one way or the other I just find it interesting. Hell, I watched a TV show one time I cannot recall the name where a Neo Nazi was saying he had to emigrate because conditions in this country were going so far down hill from his PoV.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes.  To oversimplify a bit, it's all a question of money.  Bring cash (i.e., a viable business) to the table, and most countries will open the door for you.  Of course, walking through that door involves gobs of paperwork and bureaucracy.  But the door is open.  At least for the near future.  After the fecal matter hits the revolving oscillator here in the U.S., I figure the rest of the world might adopt a more closed approach to would-be American migrants.

Not getting overly specific here, I can see your reason for thinking about this is your view that the U.S. is on a relatively fast slide into becoming more grasping on its people, more controlling and less safe (and less prosperous?), and those are solidly legitimate concerns. Anyone can see that there's been a growing wave of murky intelligence gathering and shady information practices since 2001. And some more regulations on the freedom to move about of people and capital. This is not an exclusively U.S. phenomenon, of course... And your feeling there's also the feeling voiced by one or two others in this thread that the mental climate in the U.S. is growing more...frumpy and intrusive when it comes to non-standard religious/philosophical views and so on - this is easy to understand too.

Just picking up on the aspect of bringing a viable business into another country - sometimes it's not just a matter of replanting that business in a new country. Licences, local business and workplace practices that are different from American business culture, finding the right locations for offices, factories or shop outlets could take some time. It would be good to check out the experience of other people in the same general field of business who have been setting up shop in the countries one is considering (and that goes for whether you have a going business at present or you're planning to launch one in a few years time).

[IStateYourName]

Could you please provide a reputable source suggesting that there is any indication that the United States government has a vested interest in "fencing in" our population?  If you truly believe that things are this bad in the US, then please emigrate already, instead of sitting behind a computer in the US, spewing conspiracy theory lines.

Even though there's nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government the power to prevent people from leaving, they've claimed that right for certain classes of people:
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/4463/Passports-Denials-Revocations-and-Restrictions

Capital controls are already a reality:
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/10/17/capital-controls-officially-begin-for-us-businesses-with-jpm.html

I'm not going to go so far as to call 9/11 the American Reichstag fire, but it sure came in handy for the government to snoop on our financial activities now, didn't it?
http://www.offshorelaw.com/index.php/77-inner/100-the-usa-patriot-act-how-it-impacts-you
http://www.rhesq.com/Terrorism/Patriot_Act_Summary.pdf

You can disagree with my conclusions if you want, but please don't claim that my position is baseless.

[Retribution]

And ironically as I was closing out the computer I encountered this http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/04/22177302-are-the-xbox-and-unleaded-gas-helping-keep-you-safe-from-violent-crime?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 *shrugs* mayhap perceptions are different from reality many times.

[Valthazar]

Even though there's nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government the power to prevent people from leaving, they've claimed that right for certain classes of people:
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/4463/Passports-Denials-Revocations-and-Restrictions

Capital controls are already a reality:
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/10/17/capital-controls-officially-begin-for-us-businesses-with-jpm.html

I don't deny many of the facts.  In other threads, I have gone into detail regarding my criticism of the Patriot Act and the role of the Federal Reserve.

But your position is baseless because you are turning known facts into blown out conspiracies intended to create mass fear.

As far as the capital controls link, all this is stating is that a bank is modifying its foreign wire transfer policy.  There is no need to worry yourself to death over this.  If you need to transfer money from a Chase bank account to a foreign fund, simply transfer the money to another US bank account, which will approve the foreign wire transfer.  Collusion between private banks and government is a known phenomenon - and corruption is a serious issue.  However, it is veering into conspiracy theory territory when you start letting individual cases dictate your world view.

As far as the passport issue, which of those conditions is alarming to you?

I'm not going to go so far as to call 9/11 the American Reichstag fire, but it sure came in handy for the government to snoop on our financial activities now, didn't it?

Based on this statement, I'm assuming you believe 9/11 was also a conspiracy?  Whether or not that is the case, I don't make my life decisions based on these theories.  The last I checked, this was a forum where empirical facts are debated, so don't expect me to take your position seriously.

[IStateYourName]

And ironically as I was closing out the computer I encountered this http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/04/22177302-are-the-xbox-and-unleaded-gas-helping-keep-you-safe-from-violent-crime?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 *shrugs* mayhap perceptions are different from reality many times.

Let's put it this way: you've got to consider a range of possible outcomes.

The best-case scenario--the top 10% of possible timelines, if you will--are things like a militant but peaceful and pragmatic center asserting itself, and an astonishing series of technological breakthroughs in the next 20 years.  China manages its rise peacefully.  Economic growth resumes, we do a better job of distributing the benefits, we fix the healthcare crisis, and achieve 4 to 6% growth through to 2030 as nanotech and a new era of activism save the day.

It's possible.  Moreover, I really, really wish things would turn out that way.  But it's an outlier.

Then there's the bottom 10%.  Things get truly ugly.  Anything from a nuclear exchange to a plague epidemic to a coup de'etat.  We run out of oil and everything crashes like Mad Max.  This is possible too, and this is what makes the true doomers--of which I am not, by the way--all warm and fuzzy inside.

This doesn't make me warm and fuzzy inside.  It scares the hell out of me.  I just take solace in the fact is is unlikely.  We muddled through the 20th century without a nuclear war, though we came close.  Fate willing, we'll muddle through the 21st century, too.

So that leaves us with the more likely outcomes.  And quite frankly, nations that go down the imperial path don't tend to return.  The collapse of empire is never pretty.  Best-case outcome (aside from that unlikely 10%) is that it folds up peacefully and we suffer about a one-fourth loss of GDP.  More likely, we fall harder.  And between that 10th percentile and 35th percentile or so is the rise of fascism, the police state, purges, and all the other hallmarks of militarism and empire at the end of its rope.

[Oniya]

The Brits don't seem to have come out too badly on the whole 'former imperial' front.

[IStateYourName]

Based on this statement, I'm assuming you believe 9/11 was also a conspiracy?  Whether or not that is the case, I don't make my life decisions based on these theories.  The last I checked, this was a forum where empirical facts are debated, so don't expect me to take your position seriously.

I'm saying it's possible 9/11 was an inside job.  I think the honest answer we plebs have to give is, "we don't know."  But that's not the crux of my argument and I don't want a thread derail.

[Valthazar]

This doesn't make me warm and fuzzy inside.  It scares the hell out of me.  I just take solace in the fact is is unlikely.  We muddled through the 20th century without a nuclear war, though we came close.  Fate willing, we'll muddle through the 21st century, too.

Trust me on this - you don't need to worry.

I'm thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident tomorrow, than from nuclear war.

Makes for a pretty cool roleplay idea though, so at least we are being productive in that sense.

[IStateYourName]

The Brits don't seem to have come out too badly on the whole 'former imperial' front.

Actually, they nearly collapsed, economically.  But the British are famous for their "stiff upper lip," and they pulled together, with Margaret Thatcher reforming the economy.  I'm not a fan of the Right, economically, but at the time it was what Britain needed.  But it wasn't pretty.

[Retribution]

Okay checking out here. Have fun kids don't throw sand.

[IStateYourName]

Trust me on this - you don't need to worry.

I'm thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident tomorrow, than from nuclear war.

Makes for a pretty cool roleplay idea though, so at least we are being productive in that sense.

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine.  http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961

Accidents happen.  Not likely, but probability definitely >0.

[Josietta]

Clarification (since I can't edit posts yet): I'm not really looking for a political debate here...more like compare-and-contrast of how various countries around the world handle these sorts of things, as told from folks who actually live under the systems (as opposed to American talking heads who spin things to fit their own agendas).

What happened to not looking for a debate?

They're already building more fences and barriers across both our northern and southern borders.  Where you used to be able to visit Mexico and Canada without passports, now you have to have one.  The handwriting is on the wall.  Ignore it at your peril.

I don't think that they are "fencing in" our population. Its more that they are keeping out illegal immigrants. Maybe you didn't notice but our country is quickly becoming overpopulated and thus causing economic strife. We have high numbers of unemployment which increases the amount of welfare our government has to pay out just to help the people survive. On top of that it causes the hunger rates to increase and that in turn causes more money to be paid out to help feed our people.  We don't have the food, jobs, or money to keep sustaining our own people let alone any immigrants that leak into the country searching for the freedom we have.

If America is so bad, why do you think so many people risk their lives to come here. To live here? True we have our downfalls. True our politics and healthcare are not the best but we are not the worst either.

I won't continue to debate this but I did want to lend my opinion on the matter.

I hope you find what you need to make yourself feel safer, more secure, and happy. 

[IStateYourName]

What happened to not looking for a debate?

LOL...well, you got me there.  I will say the responses I got are of quite a higher caliber than I'm used to seeing online.  So I got pulled into a discussion.  Mea culpa.

I don't think that they are "fencing in" our population. Its more that they are keeping out illegal immigrants. Maybe you didn't notice but our country is quickly becoming overpopulated and thus causing economic strife. We have high numbers of unemployment which increases the amount of welfare our government has to pay out just to help the people survive. On top of that it causes the hunger rates to increase and that in turn causes more money to be paid out to help feed our people.  We don't have the food, jobs, or money to keep sustaining our own people let alone any immigrants that leak into the country searching for the freedom we have.

If America is so bad, why do you think so many people risk their lives to come here. To live here? True we have our downfalls. True our politics and healthcare are not the best but we are not the worst either.

I won't continue to debate this but I did want to lend my opinion on the matter.

I hope you find what you need to make yourself feel safer, more secure, and happy.

Thanks.  :D

[Oniya]

LOL...well, you got me there.  I will say the responses I got are of quite a higher caliber than I'm used to seeing online.

We do try to keep this area in the best possible shape.  :D

[IStateYourName]

We do try to keep this area in the best possible shape.  :D

Well, let me commend you for a job well done.  Nice to see a politics board without "libtards," "Nazis!" "commies" "Obamanation" etc. being hurled around left and right.

[Valthazar]

Maybe you didn't notice but our country is quickly becoming overpopulated and thus causing economic strife. We have high numbers of unemployment which increases the amount of welfare our government has to pay out just to help the people survive. On top of that it causes the hunger rates to increase and that in turn causes more money to be paid out to help feed our people.

Just to clear, this line of reasoning is true for developing nations - where the amount of resources is theoretically fixed or limited.  For developed economies like the United States, our supply for many commodities like food, technology, and housing is directly related to demand.  Meaning, as demand for crops increases, there is financial incentive for the farming industry to expand.  A developed country like the United States is nowhere near its carrying capacity - though the argument about pollution and environmental concerns is very relevant.

Your analysis is correct, however, if this growth in population is not yielding a commensurate growth in economic contribution - as is the case with many illegal immigrants.  Even if they are performing labor, the fact that it is undocumented labor means that for all intents and purposes, it is not recorded when measuring economic growth.

So, bottom line, we need our population to grow, with the expectation that those new people will be active workers and consumers.

The birth rate in Europe is absolutely abysmal, which is part of the reason countries like France have modified their immigration policy in recent years.

[Denivar]

Have you considered the possibility of simply moving to a different state?

I understand you might disagree with much of the US federal government's foreign policy, as well as issues with domestic policy, political gridlock etc. However, realistically, (1) America's foreign policy is probably going to be just as likely to affect you if you live outside of the US as in the US; and (2) the economic situation you find yourself in based on domestic policy is more largely influenced by state politics than federal politics anyhow.

Different US states have fairly dramatic differences from each other with regard to politics and the social outlook of their citizens. A state like California, Washington, or Maine will feel completely different to Texas or Kentucky. Moving from one state to another is much, much easier than moving to a different country. I've moved to a different country before, and it's a difficult thing to do.

[TheGlyphstone]

Well, let me commend you for a job well done.  Nice to see a politics board without "libtards," "Nazis!" "commies" "Obamanation" etc. being hurled around left and right.

Most of those are right-wing generated insults/slurs, admittedly, and the general demographic of this board is very, very heavily - though not exclusively - left/liberal. But we are still mostly a polite bunch.

[Valthazar]

Most of those are right-wing generated insults/slurs, admittedly, and the general demographic of this board is very, very heavily - though not exclusively - left/liberal. But we are still mostly a polite bunch.

I think it just has more to do with the type of people here.

Most gaming/roleplay forums with debate sections tend to be left-leaning.  I'll tell you from personal experience that some of them can be downright hostile to anyone with opposing views, because both sides are just using talking points, without showing any facts.

[IStateYourName]

Have you considered the possibility of simply moving to a different state?

I have...and that's my fallback plan.  Finding a place with a lot of land and not too many people, off the beaten path.  But that's not really my preferred solution.  I would like to live in a city--not necessarily a large one, but one with libraries, highways, Internet, a university, etc.  I'm not really looking to withdraw from society.

My ideal community is 50,000 to 200,000 people, on or near the coast, with reasonably mild weather and a decent standard of living.

[kylie]

There are certainly exceptions, but realize that unless you are planning to take on a well-known position overseas (such as an internationally-recognized teaching program, like what kylie mentioned), you'll basically be making your move permanent, and inadvertently losing the many opportunity perks of being an American - which there are many.

        Ummm.  Actually I didn't say anything about teaching jobs being internationally recognized -- or not recognized, for that matter.  You did that all by yourself.  I said a couple vague words about knowing the industry -- I was actually thinking of the industry in places one is going to, and (I suppose) you translated it as that specific thing you'd want.  Me?  I'm probably one of those people who should now expect next to zero US industry recognition for some years of work.  Although there are some states where I might expect a smallish reward for at least spending that time in classrooms, if I were to start formally retraining for better public education credentials. 

        Benefits of being American today are very relative and very much limited by your class and position.  I was in a position where I was finding no paying work of any interest or logistical sanity in two sizable Southern cities.  I came to the conclusion that 1) I needed to survive and 2) my education wasn't earning me much in the US apart from endless commutes through ill-designed, decaying urban infrastructure and long hours where even if I found something half decent eventually (heaven only knew when but it wasn't within my means to find out), most of the take was going to be scooped right away again.  Partly thanks to the lack of any real healthcare safety net, and partly thanks to inflated costs of education and a reduction in real wages and job opportunities (see also financial crash, defunding of state universities, and increasing class gap for generations).

       This is not to say that no other countries are also turning education into a commercial racket where a few big names turn ridiculous profits and many graduates don't really have applicable markets if they did learn something.  (But they can still require people to at least get a BA, often a much watered down one imo).  It's also entirely possible to learn about topics or approaches that people in power just don't want to catch fire.  Be all that as it may, much of the world is still learning English so there are jobs for native speakers in a wide variety of places.  And degrees do get you in the door, so for people who care about the principle of the matter or just need a door -- there it is.
 

[kylie]

I would like to live in a city--not necessarily a large one, but one with libraries, highways, Internet, a university, etc.  I'm not really looking to withdraw from society.

My ideal community is 50,000 to 200,000 people, on or near the coast, with reasonably mild weather and a decent standard of living.

Well I don't know a great deal about IT startups and the like (you mentioned something about infotech earlier)...  But just off the bat here are my impressions:

          You might need to make some compromise between size of the city you want, and the quality of communications and/or cosmopolitanism it has.  I can think of smaller cities and I can think of places that have a lot of international connections, but it's not so common that they are the same places.  The more connected and accessible places also tend to be quite big...  Hong Kong, Bangkok, Tokyo or Osaka if you can afford it maybe...  A city of 200 k is sort of well, barely an international city to my mind.  Surely there are places I'm not thinking of, but how many of them have high-speed internet, a good university or several, and all those libraries, bookstores, cafes, etc. you want.  And then we get on to chances to meet in person whatever kind of people you might want, which could make the issue of scale much worse. 

         Hardly an exhaustive list but tossing out a few ideas...

          Europe might be of interest if you have either the money, or unique enough skills to settle down there.  They must have some reasonably good comm lines and plenty of smallish cities (though I still think 200 k is looking small -- back in the US, most of Seattle's "outlying" cities are larger than that if I'm not mistaken, and some of those are rather sleepy I think).  For me, Europe or Canada are pretty daunting because they tend to have high and particular demands for unique skills, in order to become classified as a resident and enjoy many of the benefits.  Of course, maybe if you simply have the money and don't need so many benefits of early residency or citizenship, that isn't a big issue. 

           Perhaps you could look into less "popular" places that are developed but could have some smaller communities online --  I don't know, maybe Israel, New Zealand, South Africa I just wonder if they have some quieter areas that are still wired...  Taipei is not actually that small -- but smaller cities in Taiwan might do it?  Or South Korea -- very wired, but again no idea about immigration rules for what you want.   I don't know very much about the Philippines or Indonesia -- some other places that have certain international ties, coastline and very mild weather, but politically and economically they seem very mixed bags to me. 

           Wanting a coast limits things quite a bit maybe, although many large, "global" cities are on the ocean.  Do you mean specifically ocean, or would any sea or large lake do?  Curious.   

[Valthazar]

kylie - My apologies.  I incorrectly assumed you were talking about those US-based programs which organize American teachers to work abroad.

I'll be honest though, this thread feels more like a roleplay brainstorming session for where a character should emigrate to, rather than a realistic discussion about how feasible emigration really is.  It's a fun thought, but until I see more consideration of the issues I raised regarding residency issues, taxation, visa qualifications, as well as necessary resources - it is difficult for me to take some of these views seriously.

It is a bit ridiculous to suggest someone to emigrate the US, simply because they can't find employment in 2 American cities.  If you have student loans, you are now going to have moving costs, along with the loan payments (given the hopeful assumption that you'll somehow find a better paying job overseas than in the US).  It's very risky, and not simply a theoretical matter about which country is better.

[IStateYourName]

I'll be honest though, this thread feels more like a roleplay brainstorming session for where a character should emigrate to, rather than a realistic discussion about how feasible emigration really is.  It's a fun thought, but until I see more consideration of the issues I raised regarding residency issues, taxation, visa qualifications, as well as necessary resources - it is difficult for me to take some of these views seriously.

It is a bit ridiculous to suggest someone to emigrate the US, simply because they can't find employment in 2 American cities.  If you have student loans, you are now going to have moving costs, along with the loan payments (given the hopeful assumption that you'll somehow find a better paying job overseas than in the US).  It's very risky, and not simply a theoretical matter about which country is better.

Well of course...in this world pretty much everything is predicated on having sufficient funds.  The things you speak of are pretty much all monetary, directly or indirectly.  Unless you're trying to get into one of the odd places that categorically does not welcome outsiders (i.e., Iran or North Korea, places that you probably don't want to end up anyway), all the factors you listed are readily workable provided one has the funds.  I've looked around, and most of the countries I'm considering have codicils in their immigration policies for people bringing money and/or a productive enterprise to said country.

[Valthazar]

Do you really have that kind of dough lying around though?  Realize that you likely won't get permanent residence right away, so you'll likely be paying dual taxes (or something of that nature) for a period of time - if you somehow manage to qualify for a work visa.

If you're wealthy, consider buying an EU citizenship for $880,000
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/world/europe/malta-citizenship-program/

You're better off moving to North Dakota, which is going through a bit of an economic boom right now. 

[Torch]

Do you really have that kind of dough lying around though? 

Anyone with that amount of liquid assets is better off talking to the good folks at Bessemer Trust, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs or any other reputable private client wealth management firm.

No offense to the good folks at Elliquiy, but...come on now.  ::)

[Oniya]

Somehow, I doubt that sets of 'People with that much money to throw around' and 'People who wish to leave the United States' have a very large intersection. 

[Torch]

Somehow, I doubt that sets of 'People with that much money to throw around' and 'People who wish to leave the United States' have a very large intersection.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram doesn't intersect.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram doesn't intersect.

Or a very very small segment with the phrase 'no extradition treaties' in their head.

[Oniya]

Or a very very small segment with the phrase 'no extradition treaties' in their head.

That was the intersection set I was thinking of.  ;D

[Torch]

Or a very very small segment with the phrase 'no extradition treaties' in their head.

Heh!  :D

[IStateYourName]

Somehow, I doubt that sets of 'People with that much money to throw around' and 'People who wish to leave the United States' have a very large intersection.

Perhaps not.  But money isn't of much use if you don't have your freedom...or if the government has tens of trillions of dollars in debt it needs to inflate away.

Actually, I have $4.2 million in Bitcoin.   ;D   Just kidding...for now.

[Valthazar]

Actually, I have $4.2 million in Bitcoin.   ;D   Just kidding...for now.

What you are doing is incredibly risky.

Anyone who deals with money will tell you that it is not intelligent to put all of your eggs in one basket - even if that single stock is near guaranteed to rise in value.  I had a buddy who put his life savings into Apple when the 1st iPhone came out, and he made a ton of money off of that.  He was lucky, but it doesn't change the fact that he has no clue how to manage his finances.  For every success (luck) story like that, I can show you 100 others who came out a loser.  Both types of people seemingly did "research" in making their risky investment.

Before April/March last year, Bitcoins was around $10-20 per coin in value.  Today it's like $700, and I heard it's valuation is about $1,200 looking ahead.  But you'd be an idiot to dump your life savings into a single endeavor.  If you'd like, put an affordable amount into it.

The main concern, in my opinion, is that Bitcoin only really became a real currency about a year ago.  You're gambling with a very volatile currency.

[Neysha]

Seems stable to me...

[Zakharra]

Seems stable to me...

Gold has a much longer history of use. The bitcoins are very new, a few years at the most. Their long term stability hasn't been established yet.

[Oniya]

Which is precisely why they are highly volatile.

[IStateYourName]

Which is why I said in my post that I was kidding about plopping all my net worth into Bitcoin.  I would never invest all or even a double-digit percentage of my net worth into any single commodity, especially one as risky and unproven as Bitcoin. 

[Valthazar]

Alright, so it's probably becoming clear that emigration really isn't as feasible an option for most of us, as compared to the far better option of moving to a different city/state.

edit: typo

[kylie]

I'll be honest though, this thread feels more like a roleplay brainstorming session for where a character should emigrate to, rather than a realistic discussion about how feasible emigration really is.  It's a fun thought, but until I see more consideration of the issues I raised regarding residency issues, taxation, visa qualifications, as well as necessary resources - it is difficult for me to take some of these views seriously.

Well I agree it's difficult to make a solid recommendation without knowing just what kind of resources someone does have.  But you could take it more as just a bouncing around of places to look at.  Though I do wish I knew a bit more about just what sort of lifestyle he wants.  We may be dancing past some rather obvious points without that.   

It is a bit ridiculous to suggest someone to emigrate [emigrate out of? -- I don't think that word stands alone] the US, simply because they can't find employment in 2 American cities.  If you have student loans, you are now going to have moving costs, along with the loan payments (given the hopeful assumption that you'll somehow find a better paying job overseas than in the US).  It's very risky, and not simply a theoretical matter about which country is better.

I'm not recommending for him; he came asking where people would consider interesting (or just maybe, feasible) to live. 

       I was just saying it's not always that easy to stay afloat in the US, either.  I don't know if he has lots of stuff to move or next to nothing.  I had next to nothing left and no way to hold onto even that without help from the informal economy (aka friends in this case).  Sure, I could have taken one last roll of the dice but if it failed I was going to have zero mobility and maybe zero home.  So a lot of those things you're worrying about didn't really apply to me.  It's not all that risky to keep moving in my experience, if all you are looking for is a teaching job -- so long as you can pay for transportation to the next gig.  It's not so different from a mediocre contractor or low-level academic following their industry around the US wherever the money pops up next, except that in my case I don't have all that stuff to pay to ship.  Now, I don't pretend to know various countries' regulations for IT projects and higher tax brackets, though.  And we don't know what "I" is or isn't moving.

      One thing I can say is, you get quite a tax exemption in the US if you are middle income but paying taxes of any kind in another country. (It was like no taxes on the first $75k, some years ago.  I haven't checked just recently.)  So it makes some sense if he is really worried about the financial setup in the US, to go somewhere better.  Of course, what that means for people who can't afford to start up a business and how much wealth is being moved basically out of the country period, well there must be other threads about that.   

[IStateYourName]

       Well I agree it's difficult to make a solid recommendation without knowing just what kind of resources someone does have.  But you could take it more as just a bouncing around of places to look at.  Though I do wish I knew a bit more about just what sort of lifestyle he wants.  We may be dancing past some rather obvious points without that.   I'm not recommending for him; he came asking where people would consider interesting (or just maybe, feasible) to live. 

Exactly.  I really wasn't looking for a discussion on the merits of emigration, or of saying, "America sucks compared to ________."  Just (to use nation names randomly), "The universal healthcare system in France is really wonderful," or "Avoid Brazil, the cost of living is through the roof and there's pollution everywhere," or "Come to lovely Australia, the women are gorgeous and taxes are low."  From people who actually live (or have lived) in those countries.  I don't want to go by rose-colored or shit-colored glasses (like romanticizing certain places/destinations because of movies, or hearing the right-wingers here claim Britain's NHS hospitals are a modern-day Auschwitz).

[Neysha]

Maybe when America collapses, you can declare independence from the United States of America and declare the sovereignty of your community? That'd make for an interesting RP... I mean life choice. ;)

[Oniya]

It worked for Key West...

[IStateYourName]

Maybe when America collapses, you can declare independence from the United States of America and declare the sovereignty of your community? That'd make for an interesting RP... I mean life choice. ;)

Actually, that is a possible outcome of the current situation.  The national debt soars past $50 trillion/200% of GDP.  Foreign buyers start wanting more realistic interest rates on U.S. securities as they're just not perceived as totally secure anymore (that one development alone, long-term interest rates rising even 2%, could seriously put a hammerlock on the U.S. fiscal situation).  The federal government can no longer function effectively.

Given this country's Right leaning, I think "abler men" coming in from Monsanto or Goldman Sachs and taking the reins and steering us to fascism is a more likely outcome than the dissolution of the United States.  But it's still possible.

EDIT: Which is why I favor emigration.  I just don't see the current situation ending nicely.  If I thought the most likely outcome was some sort of breakup where California, the Reno metro and maybe Oregon broke off from America and went their own way reasonably peacefully, I'd stay.  But Americans falling in line with the corporatist goose-step is a much more likely outcome.  People here are too nationalist, and too servile to the rich, for things to go another way besides fascism.

[Valthazar]

There is merit to your claim that US debt may continue to increase and confidence in US bonds may decline.  You're also probably right in saying that long-term rates may increase.

But how do you figure that Goldman Sachs (or another global banking firm) is going to "take the reigns" and topple our election and political process?  And what does that have to do with your opinion of this country being right-leaning?  If anything, most Constitutionalists would describe themselves as more right-leaning, and they certainly are not fans of fascism.

You may be correct in saying that too many people are servile to the rich, and ignorant of what is going on.  But do you really think that most multinational corporations will sit by idly as free-market capitalism goes by the wayside?  Absolutely not - you better believe they'll be actively trying to avert a shift towards fascism with lobbying - since capitalism (and having a consumer base) is ultimately the basis for their wealth.

There are a lot of people hoping to create new independent countries after the supposed fall of the US.  There's even this fringe white nationalist movement in the Pacific Northwest trying develop a "white homeland" encompassing Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.  I wouldn't take all of these very seriously.

[Iniquitous]

There is a part of me that would love to emigrate out of the US (I am a naturalized citizen, was not born here) and go back to Germany, possibly Norway. However, there is an old saying that I always keep in mind:

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Leaving the US might be all sunshine and roses for the first small bit of time, but reality will sink in sooner rather than later and you may find yourself worse off. Or feeling the effects of being isolated from everything you know and everyone you know.

[IStateYourName]

There is merit to your claim that US debt may continue to increase and confidence in US bonds may decline.  You're also probably right in saying that long-term rates may increase.

But how do you figure that Goldman Sachs (or another global banking firm) is going to "take the reigns" and topple our election and political process?  And what does that have to do with your opinion of this country being right-leaning?  If anything, most Constitutionalists would describe themselves as more right-leaning, and they certainly are not fans of fascism.

Because we're already there, really.  Do you have any idea how much the Fortune 500 corporations pump into U.S. elections?  Our political process is already corporate-owned.  They even bought off the Supreme Court (Citizens United) to make it legal.  And the problem with the Constitutionalists is that they don't understand human nature.  You get rid of the government (which is basically what they want to do) and who is going to move into that vacuum?  The Duck Dynasty fanbase, each wanting to cling to their own fiefdoms and Bibles and guns?  Or the multibillion-dollar conglomerates who have their own private armies and already own most of the political machinery?  I think the answer is clear.  So as far as I'm concerned, operationally the Constitutionalists are fascists too--they just don't know it.  Their approach is just the long road.

You may be correct in saying that too many people are servile to the rich, and ignorant of what is going on.  But do you really think that most multinational corporations will sit by idly as free-market capitalism goes by the wayside?  Absolutely not - you better believe they'll be actively trying to avert a shift towards fascism with lobbying - since capitalism (and having a consumer base) is ultimately the basis for their wealth.

Uh...I hate to break it to you, but the big corporations don't want free-market capitalism.  They want crony capitalism, which is the early stage of fascism.  They've spent billions on buying the political process.  Have you seen the shuffle of suits between High Finance and the federal regulatory agencies?  Dinos' Bar and Grill and small businesses want free-market capitalism.  But they don't count in the big scheme of things.

There are a lot of people hoping to create new independent countries after the supposed fall of the US.  There's even this fringe white nationalist movement in the Pacific Northwest trying develop a "white homeland" encompassing Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.  I wouldn't take all of these very seriously.

For now, I don't either.  They're more likely to be co-opted into the whole "keep your hands off my Bibles and guns" crowd, which will have its own (carefully managed and controlled) lobbying presence in the New Corporate State or whatever they call it in Washington.

[Valthazar]

Unfortunately, you are making some very extreme categorizations of political beliefs.  You are referring to a "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" as constructed by the corporate-owned leaders you refer to - which has played heavily in constructing the modern day establishment Democratic and Republican parties.  By strict definition, Constitutionalist in no way implies that one is a devout Christian.  In fact, a pure reading of the Constitution would probably better be defined as Libertarian, if you really want to attach a monicker to the view.

You are absolutely correct - crony-capitalism is the problem.  But I am sure we can agree that legitimate, honest, capitalism (devoid of government/private business collusion) is what makes us a free country, and promotes opportunity.

There is some truth to your claim that corporations want crony-capitalism, but everything is like a pendulum.  True fascism does not permit competition among multinational private companies, meaning that private companies are dependent on consumers having sufficient expendable income, or credit available, for making purchases.  Meaning that within a given industry - say the smartphone industry - Samsung, Apple, Windows, and Google all have a vested stake in consumers having choice.  A fascist society wouldn't permit open competition between these 4 companies.  One would likely dominate the others in a truly fascist society - leaving 3 very unhappy CEOs.

[Neysha]

Lets go with that.

Samsung, Apple, Microsoft and Google.

How many of them, could we suppose, are crony-capitalist to the point of being fascist in their upper leadership?

Samsung isn't even an American company, it's South Korean. Will they be allies in this fascist regime?

And Goldman Sachs is interesting, being a multinational investment firm. When talking about the interplay exchange of high finance and government regulators, not only have Goldman Sachs officers ended up in the Treasury Department or US Federal Reserve, but they have also ended up in high positions pertaining to the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Portugal, the Bank of Greece, the Czech Ministry of Finance and Trade, the Italian Cabinet, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the South African Reserve Bank, the European Comission, the Swedish Ministry of Finance and the European Central Bank. And that's just Goldman Sachs... who knows how deep the corporatist state grip is not only upon American financial regulators and central banks, but those across the developed world.

[IStateYourName]

Unfortunately, you are making some very extreme categorizations of political beliefs.  You are referring to a "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" as constructed by the corporate-owned leaders you refer to - which has played heavily in constructing the modern day establishment Democratic and Republican parties.  By strict definition, Constitutionalist in no way implies that one is a devout Christian.  In fact, a pure reading of the Constitution would probably better be defined as Libertarian, if you really want to attach a monicker to the view.

There's truth in that.  However, the irreligious pure Constitutionalists are a rather small slice of the political pie.  For every one of them, there are five or six followers of "Republican Jesus."  I'd be shocked to find more than 5% of the polity were secular Constitutionalists; I'd bet more like 3 to 4%.  They're enough of a force that the "New Corporate State" will pay them lip service and channel their angst into astroturfed Tea Party-type groups.  But they're going to be, at most, the child in the back seat with the toy dashboard thinking he's driving the car, given a few minor posts and outright sinecures.  Mom and Dad will toot the horn in unison with the kid from time to time, but that's about the extent of it.  Kiddo is not going to be in charge of anything important.

You are absolutely correct - crony-capitalism is the problem.  But I am sure we can agree that legitimate, honest, capitalism (devoid of government/private business collusion) is what makes us a free country, and promotes opportunity.

It's what made America free in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  The outlook here in the 21st is considerably more murky.  One big issue we're going to be confronting is the value of human labor decaying to zero by the middle of the century--if not a decade or so sooner--as computers get more and more powerful.  We're already feeling the effects of this trend.  How is the free-market model going to distribute wealth when an increasing percentage of the population are--through little or no fault of their own--no longer competitive with machines and AI?  Do the handful of people inventing the machines become gazillionaires whilst the other 99.96% of humanity starve?  I'm not going to pretend I know the answer to this, but I think wealth is going to have to become, at least in part, a basic social benefit--anathema to the pure capitalist model.  America is rather poorly positioned, intellectually and philosophically, to adapt to the end of the Protestant work ethic--to the "hardest, most loved by God/the free market" worker in most industries being based on silicon rather than carbon. 

There is some truth to your claim that corporations want crony-capitalism, but everything is like a pendulum.  True fascism does not permit competition among multinational private companies, meaning that private companies are dependent on consumers having sufficient expendable income, or credit available, for making purchases.  Meaning that within a given industry - say the smartphone industry - Samsung, Apple, Windows, and Google all have a vested stake in consumers having choice.  A fascist society wouldn't permit open competition between these 4 companies.  One would likely dominate the others in a truly fascist society - leaving 3 very unhappy CEOs.

True.  But then again, there are always purges whenever "abler men" take the reins.  There are always Trotskys and Strassers that have to fall by the wayside...

[Valthazar]

Do the handful of people inventing the machines become gazillionaires whilst the other 99.96% of humanity starve?  I'm not going to pretend I know the answer to this, but I think wealth is going to have to become, at least in part, a basic social benefit--anathema to the pure capitalist model.

Not a bad thought there.  For example, I was reading that the trucker industry as a whole will probably disappear by the 2050s, with so many safer, self-driving vehicle alternatives by then.

But I don't think the solution to this is to suddenly make wealth a social benefit.  As egalitarian as this may seem, this would kill any remaining independence and sense of self-sufficiency we have, and concentrate even more power within the state (since they will then decide the rationing of wealth).  In addition, making wealth a social benefit would deter the natural survival principle of breaking out of one's comfort zone, and developing the new skills necessary to adapt to the new jobs.

The much more ideal response is to invest more resources into education and jobs-of-the-future programs today, so that these blue-collar workers are better equipped to take on new information-age jobs.  As expected though, this is not happening, so all things considered, greater dependency on the state is likely what is going to end up happening.  Kind of unfortunate that such a great country of freedom and self-sufficiency is slowly changing course.

[consortium11]

And Goldman Sachs is interesting, being a multinational investment firm. When talking about the interplay exchange of high finance and government regulators, not only have Goldman Sachs officers ended up in the Treasury Department or US Federal Reserve, but they have also ended up in high positions pertaining to the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Portugal, the Bank of Greece, the Czech Ministry of Finance and Trade, the Italian Cabinet, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the South African Reserve Bank, the European Comission, the Swedish Ministry of Finance and the European Central Bank. And that's just Goldman Sachs... who knows how deep the corporatist state grip is not only upon American financial regulators and central banks, but those across the developed world.

There's somewhat of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect to this however.

I've got personal experience (on both sides of the fence) dealing with financial regulation in the UK and put simply the regulators were woefully under-equipped for the change in financial services from a gentleman's club to a ruthless meritocracy (albeit often short term). Prior to the Big Bang the financial service industry in the UK was very much an old boys network with progress decided by what your family name was and which (school) tie you wore... and the same occurred with the regulators. Thus you had school friends sat on either side of the divide with regulation and decisions often done over a glass of wine at the private club they both shared with neither side willing to rock the boat.

Then came the Big Bang... and the regulators were blown out of the water.

The Big Bang brought in a change of mentality and attitude. Suddenly it didn't matter where a banker (to use the catch all term) had come from or what school he (and at the time it was invariably "he") went to... what mattered was how good they were and how much money they could make. Regulators weren't dealing with "gentlemen" who went shooting at the weekends... they were dealing with exceedingly clever, exceedingly ambitious people who didn't care about the old boys network, who didn't see the regulators as a personal friend and who were willing and able to work through the gaps in legislation and approach.

And the regulators couldn't cope. They weren't prepared or equipped to deal with this. They didn't understand the sort of technical instruments and vehicles that were being created or the mechanisms that were being put in place... they didn't understand how they worked on a technical level or what the implications were. One doesn't have to look at high finance to see this... it took the FOS (a sort of quasi-regulator body in the UK) years to work out quite how big PPI was when anyone in the industry could have told you the issue from the moment PPI first started to appear.

So where do you go to to find people who understand the industry they're meant to regulate?

The industry of course...

And that's the problem. Yes, bringing in people from Goldman Sachs and other financial companies of that stature means you're getting people who understand the industry... technically, strategically and mentally... but you also get the issue we have now where it appears a two year spell working for the regulator is simply another step on the career ladder for many in financial services. To take the FOS again, their former operations director (who previously worked for Barclays Bank) now works for Santander (another bank). The former chief regulator in the UK resigned... and a few months later was working for Barclays (although I note he's had to resign from there due to stress... the financial industry works its staff a lot harder than the regulator does).

[consortium11]

The much more ideal response is to invest more resources into education and jobs-of-the-future programs today, so that these blue-collar workers are better equipped to take on new information-age jobs.

Here's the issue though... and it is a genuine issue.

How many information-age jobs are there?

We don't know quite when it will or won't happen, but technology improvements mean there simply won't be as many jobs... not just that the jobs have moved sector. With automation of many services and 3D printing coming forward the majority of "manual" jobs will disappear... it's pretty much inevitable. And that leaves us with what? How many lawyers, stockbrokers, IT guys, psychologists, artists, writers does the economy need... or, more importantly, can it support? Because supply in those sectors would almost certainly outstrip demand.

I'm not a communist in the slightest... hell, anyone who's read my posts on here will see I'm actually a fairly mild libertarian... but Marx was certainly right in one thing. Capitalism greatest success will also be its greatest failure. The dream of capitalism is to be able to produce something at virtually no cost and sell them for a large profit... but when you can produce goods or services at virtually no cost there is no ability to sell them (let alone at a profit) because there are no consumers with the income to purchase them.   

[Valthazar]

With automation of many services and 3D printing coming forward the majority of "manual" jobs will disappear... it's pretty much inevitable. And that leaves us with what?

You're right, a lot of the manual jobs will disappear - it is inevitable.  But for every new technology, there will be a corresponding rise in new employment sectors.  Many of these new employment areas will not be blue-collar though, and will require immense education and specialization. 

The concern isn't a lack of jobs due to the technological progress, it is the nature of the jobs themselves.  We really can't afford to have 30-40% of high school students dropping out with the way future employment prospects are looking.  The current state of higher education is also abysmal in the US.  While I don't agree with IStateYourName on everything, he's right in saying that we've got a perfect storm awaiting us in the near future.

[IStateYourName]

You're right, a lot of the manual jobs will disappear - it is inevitable.  But for every new technology, there will be a corresponding rise in new employment sectors.  Many of these new employment areas will not be blue-collar though, and will require immense education and specialization. 

I wouldn't count on this in the long term.  What happens when the computer on the desk in front of you is as smart as you are (or close to it)?  Retraining is a short-term answer.  There's simply not enough of the dwindling deck space on the sinking industrial Titanic left for all the soon-to-be-unemployed drivers, fast-food workers and assemblers to pick up their deck chairs and move to.  What jobs will they get?  Building the robots that replace them?  What happens when the robots are built by other robots?  And what happens when AI gets to the point that improvement in its capabilities is recursive? 

The concern isn't a lack of jobs due to the technological progress, it is the nature of the jobs themselves.  We really can't afford to have 30-40% of high school students dropping out with the way future employment prospects are looking.  The current state of higher education is also abysmal in the US.  While I don't agree with IStateYourName on everything, he's right in saying that we've got a perfect storm awaiting us in the near future.

I'd say the capabilities of IT are going to price most high-school graduates out of the job market by the early 2020s.  Less than a decade from now.

Okay, so we send everyone to college.  With no end in sight to Moore's Law, how long until the AI puts your average bachelor's degree holder out of the market?  Five years beyond the point the high-school students lose their jobs?  Seems a reasonable estimate, since IT technology would get about three to five times as powerful in that timespan.  That means if we send the high-schoolers to college and they get a four-year degree, they've got a year to work until they're uncompetitive once again with the machines.  So what next?  A master's degree?  A mandatory Ph.D.?  Wouldn't even matter--by then, the machines get smarter faster than the humans do.

Face it: the industrial model of wealth distribution is dying.  It's got another two decades at most, and it's going to start to come apart at the seams in the next few years.

[Torch]

So where do you go to to find people who understand the industry they're meant to regulate?

The industry of course...

Wall Street (the entire financial services industry in fact) has always been incredibly incestuous on this side of the pond. Mr. Torch has worked in investment management for over 25 years. He's worked for seven different firms over the years, and the only job he actually "applied" for was his first, directly out of college. Every other position he's been hired for has been the result of networking. It is very much a "who you know" industry, and always has been.

[Neysha]

A lot of jobs,  or careers rather, are find via networking. I doubt the financial sectoris exclusice in this regard. It maybe exceptional via the regulators, but that point was already summarized in excellent fashion by Consortium.

[Valthazar]

Face it: the industrial model of wealth distribution is dying.  It's got another two decades at most, and it's going to start to come apart at the seams in the next few years.

What you are saying is very true, but I feel that you are letting your interest in sci-fi overtake the need for rational policy at present.  What you are describing is very real, but this would be akin to people in the 1800s discussing the theoretical basis of how mass global transportation would affect cultures and the economic ill-effects globalization would cause.

I am actually a strong proponent against this concept of higher education for all individuals.  What we need though, is a more robust K-12 system that teaches the types of skills necessary in the future (a.k.a skills that will not be reproducible by machines during our lifetimes).  These skills include emotional intelligence, the ability to critically think, creativity of thought, and rational/situational thinking.  I work in higher ed, and some of these students are like drones, with none of these skills.  If you look at people who are chronically unemployed (2-3 years), the reason for their unemployment is often a lack of these fundamental skills.

We've got a shot of preparing today's blue collar workers and their kids for the jobs of tomorrow.  Those jobs won't be blue collar, but will likely require a modified education system that heavily deals with specialized trade labor - which involves a lot of intellectual work.  But I agree with you that the likelihood of such positive changes occurring is slim to none.  As such, what you describe will ultimately turn out to be the reality.  I'm just saying, that that isn't the ideal outcome, nor does it necessarily have to be the case.

[IStateYourName]

What you are saying is very true, but I feel that you are letting your interest in sci-fi overtake the need for rational policy at present.  What you are describing is very real, but this would be akin to people in the 1800s discussing the theoretical basis of how mass global transportation would affect cultures and the economic ill-effects globalization would cause.

Except we're not talking changes that are many decades to centuries away.  We're looking at something which is already underway, and which will be coming to fruition within our lifetimes.

I am actually a strong proponent against this concept of higher education for all individuals.  What we need though, is a more robust K-12 system that teaches the types of skills necessary in the future (a.k.a skills that will not be reproducible by machines during our lifetimes).  These skills include emotional intelligence, the ability to critically think, creativity of thought, and rational/situational thinking.  I work in higher ed, and some of these students are like drones, with none of these skills.  If you look at people who are chronically unemployed (2-3 years), the reason for their unemployment is often a lack of these fundamental skills.

I'm in favor of reforming the education system to improve the quality of life for those it services, but this is going to be of little use in fighting the future.  Yes, by all means go for it to achieve the marginal improvements it will eke out during the next decade to decade and a half.  Retrain workers displaced by technology, help them pick up their deck chairs and move them further up the Titanic so they can work a few more years before being made underwater and obsolete once more.  After that, in two decades at most, the machines are taking over.  A child born today will come of working age in a society where no one drives cars, the top ten supercomputers are the most intelligent entities the planet has ever seen, most companies have computer networks whose intelligence rivals that of humans, and where his or her own computer will have an intelligence somewhere between that of a dog and a chimpanzee--and a processing power hundreds to thousands of times what PCs have today. 

We've got a shot of preparing today's blue collar workers and their kids for the jobs of tomorrow.  Those jobs won't be blue collar, but will likely require a modified education system that heavily deals with specialized trade labor - which involves a lot of intellectual work.  But I agree with you that the likelihood of such positive changes occurring is slim to none.  As such, what you describe will ultimately turn out to be the reality.  I'm just saying, that that isn't the ideal outcome, nor does it necessarily have to be the case.

I think this is a good approach for today's teenagers and younger displaced workers.  For someone in their 50s losing their job, they're better off retiring.  For now though, we need to begin planning for the future.  We need to formally acknowledge that most of the jobs lost in the recession are not coming back, and that there will not be nearly enough jobs to replace them.  We need to accept that the structural unemployment rate is already likely 5 to 6%, it's likely to rise about half to three-quarters of a percent a year for the next decade, then rise faster and faster (recursive improvement in AI), and that nothing can stop this. 

Once we recognize the industrial system is dying, there's lots we can do to improve education so people have a better quality of life, developing their creativity for creativity's sake rather than how effective it is as stamping widgets or sitting in an office 40 hours a week.

[Valthazar]

You are using legitimate facts to make questionable conclusions.

The graph you posted demonstrates exponential growth in "calculations per second."  No one denies this.  But that does not suggest that in 10-20 years (as you claim), that computers will have empathy, situational judgement based on non-empirical data, and emotional intelligence.  I hope you are joking when you suggest that computers will "take over" our economic system in 20 years.  Employability is not related to IQ, so I am not sure why you keep citing computational power - since niche labor markets represent the future (if we can get our act together).  You are not providing any evidence to suggest that computational power alone can replace the complexity of immeasurable skills that human beings can accomplish.  In the short-term, your claims are speculative at best, and pure fear-mongering to push forward a very suspect economic agenda. 

[IStateYourName]

You are using legitimate facts to make questionable conclusions.

The graph you posted demonstrates exponential growth in "calculations per second."  No one denies this.  But that does not suggest that in 10-20 years (as you claim), that computers will have empathy, situational judgement based on non-empirical data, and emotional intelligence.  I hope you are joking when you suggest that computers will "take over" our economic system in 20 years.  Employability is not related to IQ, so I am not sure why you keep citing computational power - since niche labor markets represent the future (if we can get our act together).  You are not providing any evidence to suggest that computational power alone can replace the complexity of immeasurable skills that human beings can accomplish.  In the short-term, your claims are speculative at best, and pure fear-mongering to push forward a very suspect economic agenda.

There will no doubt be niches that human intelligence holds onto, even by the middle of the century.  But that really doesn't matter.

Consider dehydration.  You don't have to lose all or even most of the water in your body to die from dehydration.  Lose 5%, and you will suffer profound thirst.  Lose 10%, and you will be quite ill and unable to function normally.  Lose 15%, and you will end up in a coma.  Lose 20%, and you will be dead.

Machines don't need to replace all or even most humans to throw a spanner into the whole industrial labor-based wealth distribution economic model.  When machines render 5% of the population permanently unemployed, we will have an ongoing economic malaise, a declining standard of living, and underemployment (sound familiar?).  When machines render 10% of the working-age population redundant, you're talking tens of millions of people on permanent government relief.  When machines render 15% of the population unable to work, you will have well north of 30,000,000 Americans in a perpetual underclass.  At 20%, the system breaks down.  You have a critical mass of the population with no wealth, no access to income, and no prospects for improvement.  Too many to put on relief--especially in a right-wing country like this, where the Rush Limbaugh-type talking heads will call them lazy moochers even though they bear little if any responsibility for their predicament.  This is the point revolutions usually ensue.

At the end of the day, you don't need "situational judgement based on non-empirical data" to make the trains run on time.  You can't run an industrial society unless the vast majority--better than 90%--of working-age people have access to the means of production and can earn a decent living exchanging their labor for wealth.  And the process has been underway for quite some time now:

[Valthazar]

I understand what you are saying.  My area of contention is - should we acknowledge that some people are only capable of blue collar work (as you claim), and modify the economic system to match the reality that they will systemically be unable to find work, OR do we take this on as a challenge, and embrace a society where computers perform previously blue-collar work, and transform our education system to train this previously uneducated labor force into alternative roles.  These alternate roles would be the result of entrepreneurs progressing society at an exponentially greater rate than previous decades, due to improved efficiency of labor.

I realize that all factors being taken into consideration, the 2nd suggestion is rather unlikely.  However, I think it's worth an honest effort in improving the various institutions in our society, before flat out giving up on our economic system.

[Neysha]

I'm not sure how any of this is related to emigration since it seems to be a worldwide issue, at least in any nation that you would realistically emigrate to.

[gaggedLouise]

I'd agree with ISYN (okay?) that it's a big and tidally rising problem when changes to the economy make more and more people superfluous as far as the work they used to do, have the know-how to do. If 10 or 25 per cent of the grown-up population have almost no realistic chances of finding steady work in something they are good at, then it's going to send society and daily life into convulsions. There's no way one could have one out of four or five adults on permanent dole or welfare without both locking them down and injuring their self-esteem and their ability to exist as citizens. After a while, might breed both crime, vandalism and political extremism.

But maybe there's not simply shortage of work that needs doing, and couldn't be done by machines. What if, rather, there's lots of work that needs to get done but which can't be edged into the model of (trained) skills -> labour -> wages? Work that won't fit into a market evaluation system, or can't be done profitably on a market, even though it wouldn't have to be expensive when it happens (anything where you can't specify in default terms exactly what you want, or where you want the opportunity to learn or know yourself from the guy who will do it, to take notes and learn, is a bit difficult to arrange on an open market, but it might be easy to arrange with someone you know personally, like your kids fixing something on the computer...)

I'm not sure how any of this is related to emigration since it seems to be a worldwide issue, at least in any nation that you would realistically emigrate to.

Fair enough, but I figure these problems are common to many countries these days. The key to merging into a new country or a new city, to establishing your foothold, used to be: getting a job that provides security for you (and your family, if there is one). And that's less and less easy to take as a safe bet these days.

[IStateYourName]

I understand what you are saying.  My area of contention is - should we acknowledge that some people are only capable of blue collar work (as you claim), and modify the economic system to match the reality that they will systemically be unable to find work, OR do we take this on as a challenge, and embrace a society where computers perform previously blue-collar work, and transform our education system to train this previously uneducated labor force into alternative roles.  These alternate roles would be the result of entrepreneurs progressing society at an exponentially greater rate than previous decades, due to improved efficiency of labor.

I realize that all factors being taken into consideration, the 2nd suggestion is rather unlikely.  However, I think it's worth an honest effort in improving the various institutions in our society, before flat out giving up on our economic system.

The problem is that there simply won't be economically viable (under our current model) work for these people to do.  How many "niche" jobs can you create?  At what point will you simply be creating make-work to keep employment numbers juiced so you don't have legions of poor people with pitchforks and AK-47s?

Dispensing a basic amount of wealth as a social benefit doesn't necessarily scupper the whole idea of employment.  Let's say we paid every adult citizen of America $1000 a month (along with universal healthcare and free college education).  $1000 monthly isn't that much money--that's $12,000 a year, when the poverty level is $10,400.  We establish a per-child allowance.  We also:

1) Eliminate all welfare and food stamp programs.
2) Eliminate unemployment and disability insurance.
3) Repeal the minimum wage
4) Eliminate Social Security (we would need to phase this in so as not to cut off existing seniors or people close to collecting SS)
5) Establish a $12,000 standard deduction for all individuals for income tax (means the universal income is tax-free).
6) Repeal most tax writeoffs and subsidies for individuals and business.

That right there is quite a concession to conservatives.  They get rid of the whole cumbersome social welfare apparatus, Social Security and the minimum wage.  They get a simplified tax code.  That's a lot of stuff they've been hankering for for quite some time now.

Now, let's consider the biggest objection the Right is likely to present: "But then no one will want to work, everyone will be lazy weed-smoking Xbox-playing couch-surfing bums living on Mom's couch!"

Yes, there are a few people who would drop out of the workforce to sit on the dole.  But I submit that someone who is willing to sit back and settle for $12K a year is the type of person who will be among the first to become unemployable and lose their job to a machine anyway.  If you truly don't have anything more than that to contribute to the world, you're really not needed anyway...and we might as well give you a check so you can buy basic goods and services and keep the economy going--and not revolt. 

I think most people would want more than that out of life, and they would be free to go for it.  And people who did want to pursue the arts and things computers aren't good at--those niche jobs you mentioned--would have new freedom to do so without being tied to a cubicle full time.  Maybe a person with sick parents would go to part-time work and spend the rest of their time caring for their elders rather than shuffling Mom and Pop off to a nursing home because they don't have time. 

The end of industrial work does not mean the end of human purpose and dignity.  To the contrary, the end of work as we know it can enhance these qualities of the human experience, and give us better lives.

[Valthazar]

The only justification for such a model is the self-rationalization in your mind.

Until you provide any source at all suggesting the feasibility/evidence of such a model, there really isn't a point in discussing it.

Eliminating social security?  Repealing the minimum wage?  You're really opening up a can of worms here, and without any sort of reference, there's a million things to discuss.

[gaggedLouise]

How about relaunching, or splitting off, this line of discussion in a thread of its own? This is a set of problem knots that are fairly common to much of the western world, and they might appear in China too, in time. Doesn't have anything much to do with the US vs specific other countries to live in.

[IStateYourName]

The only justification for such a model is the self-rationalization in your mind.

Until you provide any source at all suggesting the feasibility/evidence of such a model, there really isn't a point in discussing it.

Eliminating social security?  Repealing the minimum wage?  You're really opening up a can of worms here, and without any sort of reference, there's a million things to discuss.

I understand, it's a radical shift.  So was the discovery of agriculture.  People...stay in one place, all the time, scratching dirt instead of following the animals around?  Unthinkable!  Or how about industrialism...leave the comfort of home and your own land to toil for hours to make someone else rich, and they give you a piece of paper that you take to a bank rather than food and shelter?  Inconceivable!  Except that it happened.  Technology is utterly transformative that way.  It fundamentally and radically alters the way we do things, the manner in which we live our lives.  It makes scant provision for "we've always done things this way" or "this is the way things 'have' to be."  The industrial model was created by technology, and it can and will be (is being!) destroyed by technology and replaced with something radically different.

To circle back to the topic of emigration, one reason I want to leave the U.S. is because I think it's ill-prepared to adapt to the new technological model.  We don't want anything to be a social benefit here, even medicine.  In America, your net worth is strictly a product of the free market, what someone is willing to pay you.  I think Europe, for example, is going to be more amenable to adapting to distribution of wealth as a social benefit because they already distribute healthcare and post-secondary education as such.

[gaggedLouise]

I understand, it's a radical shift.  So was the discovery of agriculture.  People...stay in one place, all the time, scratching dirt instead of following the animals around?  Unthinkable!  Or how about industrialism...leave the comfort of home and your own land to toil for hours to make someone else rich, and they give you a piece of paper that you take to a bank rather than food and shelter?  Inconceivable!  Except that it happened.  Technology is utterly transformative that way.  It fundamentally and radically alters the way we do things, the manner in which we live our lives.  It makes scant provision for "we've always done things this way" or "this is the way things 'have' to be."  The industrial model was created by technology, and it can and will be (is being!) destroyed by technology and replaced with something radically different.

True, and to just add two more powerful trends:

-Money flows are steadily going more and more electronic. Banks, some financial dealers and some shops want money to be *only* electronic, to squeeze off the use of physical money. That's no big problem if you're solidly established and make many thousands of dollars a month and personally enjoy a solid cash inflow, but if you're actually one of those bilions who have to count up your money sometimes, and who may have to add cash to your main account to meet some bills that can't wait, then the absence of physical bills, of a reliable and quick channel to handle that kind and get it in, will create trouble. These days, many service providers, landlords, subscription givers, phone operators etc are quite inflexible about a bill getting paid just two or three days too late, so if you don't have the money in there, on your account, to pay - tough luck! (having a wad of bills in your pocket isn't really much use if you want to get the bill paid asap and you don't wish to pay a near-prohibitive fee for actually sending money over the counter at the bank). And if the money (dole, wages, health benefits) a person gets is some kind of welfare or dole, or unrelaible income from some kind of day-to-day work, they will be very vulnerable to any soet of techniocal glitch that could mean the money doesn't go in on their account on time.

-Also, education and personal/work identification records are moving more and more towards online. That means people who don't know how to handle a computerized process safely, who don't have the skills with the internet, or the solid experience, risk getting shut out sometimes.

Now imagine if there's a web or eklectricity outage in a future hi-tech society and many people are unable to get hold of any money or any personal records they need at all - because both money and grades, attestations etc only exist online?? That would be disastrous, and it would hit hardest at those who didn't have a regular job, and who might also be ill - those who would most need the online system to be working.

[Valthazar]

I understand, it's a radical shift.

Where did you get this economic model from?

Maybe you can explain these things to me:

1)  Two 45 year olds could live in a house with a 20 year old, each get this free $1000 per month, and have a household income of $36,000 - tax free?  Pretty sweet deal, right?

2)  For these blue-collar workers unable to find employment, and subsisting on this $1000/month, do you really believe that these people have the financial discipline to set aside a retirement fund?  What happens if their retirement fund is $0 at age 65.  They have no social security, and SOL at age 85 when they can't work?  (Totally unrelated point - if such a society exists, in all likelyhood, our markets would be diametrically different, which you haven't taken into account).

3)  You're getting rid of disability insurance - so how does one go about getting long-term nursing care for being disabled?  Usually this is included in most people's current employer provided insurance.  If you are planning to include this within your broad "universal healthcare" suggestion, you clearly haven't done your research.  That is economically unsustainable based on my understanding of how you are describing the economic climate of this future time period, and until you provide any sources, it's difficult to take this seriously.

I don't even know why I am bothering to point out the flaws, considering it seems this is a figment of your imagination.  My point isn't to criticize your views, but only to show that you're not considering a host of different factors.

Many of your suggestions here seem to be very libertarian in nature, which surprises me, since you seem to be quite averse to many right-leaning principles.

[consortium11]

Until you provide any source at all suggesting the feasibility/evidence of such a model, there really isn't a point in discussing it.

Switzerland are about to have a vote on whether they should offer a universal income of roughly $2,800 a month for each adult; there's been a fair amount of discussion and debate on that across the web.

[ofDelusions]

Switzerland are about to have a vote on whether they should offer a universal income of roughly $2,800 a month for each adult; there's been a fair amount of discussion and debate on that across the web.

There is also some discussion about "Citizen wage" in here in Finland. Though here it is mainly to make welfare less bureucratic and easier to access. And as someone who might end living looong time on welfare if I can't get rid of my mental health issues, I support less bureucracy >.<

3)  You're getting rid of disability insurance - so how does one go about getting long-term nursing care for being disabled?  Usually this is included in most people's current employer provided insurance.  If you are planning to include this within your broad "universal healthcare" suggestion, you clearly haven't done your research.  That is economically unsustainable based on my understanding of how you are describing the economic climate of this future time period, and until you provide any sources, it's difficult to take this seriously.

How is that unsustainable when that is rather close to how things are done in Nordic Countries for example?

[IStateYourName]

Where did you get this economic model from?

From the Swiss initiative (already brought up by another poster) and some logical extrapolation of current trends.

1)  Two 45 year olds could live in a house with a 20 year old, each get this free $1000 per month, and have a household income of $36,000 - tax free?  Pretty sweet deal, right?

Sure, and why not?  Part of the whole rationale behind this approach is that we no longer micromanage people.  We don't pay social workers out to snoop on people to see how many are living under the same roof, or how "needy" they are.  We simply hand people a check.  Much less bureaucracy, much more efficiency.  Not to mention freedom.  And no disincentive for people to find employment--you still get your exact same universal income whether you work or not.  If anything, this would enhance the tax base--no more working under the table to avoid the welfare office/unemployment office knowing you have income.  Some people probably would bunch up under the same roof--and why not?  Why should we care?

2)  For these blue-collar workers unable to find employment, and subsisting on this $1000/month, do you really believe that these people have the financial discipline to set aside a retirement fund?  What happens if their retirement fund is $0 at age 65.  They have no social security, and SOL at age 85 when they can't work?  (Totally unrelated point - if such a society exists, in all likelyhood, our markets would be diametrically different, which you haven't taken into account).

You're still thinking under the current paradigm.  The person would continue to get their $1000 a month, until death.  What need is there to "save for retirement?"  Yes, if a person wants a higher standard of living, they can exchange their labor for additional income, and save whatever portion of that income they want, just as they do today.  The difference is we're not employing legions of bureaucrats with complex algorithms and big pensions to decide exactly how much each person is "entitled" to based on reams of rules, policies, guidelines and procedures.

3)  You're getting rid of disability insurance - so how does one go about getting long-term nursing care for being disabled?  Usually this is included in most people's current employer provided insurance.  If you are planning to include this within your broad "universal healthcare" suggestion, you clearly haven't done your research.  That is economically unsustainable based on my understanding of how you are describing the economic climate of this future time period, and until you provide any sources, it's difficult to take this seriously.

I think we have to ask ourselves why healthcare is so expensive in the first place.  The reason is that medicine is basically a guild, with a very small number (relative to the general population) of practitioners with highly specialized knowledge, able to command a high premium for this knowledge.  Machines/AI is going to bring the cost of everything down.  Most routine medicine will be practiced by robots.  The knowledge humans currently spend the better part of a decade in medical school carefully and laboriously gleaning, will be imaged into the exabyte drive of a med-robot in a matter of minutes.  We already have robot surgeons assisting humans, and algorithms in supercomputers examining X-rays and spotting cancer cells that human eyes miss.  Powers of supercomputers today will be in every doctor's office ten years from now, and in the palm of your hand twenty years hence.  Yes, there will still be a role for humans, but it will be an auxiliary role where mundane, day-to-day medicine is concerned.

We will also be practicing more medicine ourselves.  Twice over the past year, I self-diagnosed and treated medical conditions I had based on Internet research.  Last century, I would have either had to make a time-consuming trip to a library, or gone to a physician.  (I did have to go to an urgent care once, but only to obtain a prescription--if the substance I needed hadn't been scheduled by bureaucrats, I could have just obtained it myself at the local drugstore). 

I don't even know why I am bothering to point out the flaws, considering it seems this is a figment of your imagination.  My point isn't to criticize your views, but only to show that you're not considering a host of different factors.

Everything we see around us and take for granted was once a "figment of (someone's) imagination."  The forum we're on right here once existed only in Vekseid's mind, yet here we are.  And yes, I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering, and that what I've proposed here would need to be adjusted and tweaked, probably many times, along the path to implementation.  What doesn't?

Many of your suggestions here seem to be very libertarian in nature, which surprises me, since you seem to be quite averse to many right-leaning principles.

I'm a pragmatist.  If I had to describe myself politically, it would be "technocratic, a little Left of Center, with skepticism of Big Anything."  I don't like the Right because they seem hell-bent on concentrating as much wealth as possible in the hands of as few people as possible.  That's a prescription for disaster.  America is already in the danger zone insofar as poverty and inequality of wealth is concerned, and the Right wants more and more inequality.  However, I'm also skeptical of the hardcore Left and Progressives.  I don't think government micromanagement and tweaking of everything is the answer, either.  I think the State has a role to play, but it should act behind the scenes, at high levels, and leave everyday decisions to individuals.  Hence, my idea to redistribute wealth, but to do so without creating a bureaucratic colossus.

[Oniya]

Um - as someone who has had friends investigated by DFS (their child has PDD/NOD and actually got taken from them for a time), and has also had a roommate tailed by social services to 'make sure she was disabled' (with the hilarious report that she 'hadn't reported having a child' - the child was mine walking with her to the store so she could go to get help if my roommate fell and needed assistance), I can assure you that we do 'pay people' to do exactly that.

[IStateYourName]

Um - as someone who has had friends investigated by DFS (their child has PDD/NOD and actually got taken from them for a time), and has also had a roommate tailed by social services to 'make sure she was disabled' (with the hilarious report that she 'hadn't reported having a child' - the child was mine walking with her to the store so she could go to get help if my roommate fell and needed assistance), I can assure you that we do 'pay people' to do exactly that.

Oh, I know we do now.  I was talking about life under my scenario, not the status quo.  Mea culpa if that was unclear.

[Valthazar]

From the Swiss initiative (already brought up by another poster) and some logical extrapolation of current trends.

Thanks, after having read a bit about this, I can see why it would be feasible in theory.  It is definitely an interesting idea.

But I think one of the main reasons these types of initiatives work in Nordic countries is due to the overwhelming homogeneity of their populations.  Compared to the United States, those countries have comparatively low immigrant population.  Even among immigrant populations themselves, many more of our immigrants are from 3rd world countries, meaning that given quality of life differences, abuse is much more likely in our case.

I think a more accurate example would be the UK - a European national with strong welfare benefits, along with an open-door immigration policy that has welcomed people from all over the world, and has become multicultural.  Their system is experiencing considerable abuse due to the influx of Eastern European and Asian immigrants who are not accustomed to first world life, and are perfect content living on the bare minimum of UK standards.

After researching this concept, I can certainly see its merits now, but why do you feel this type of model would work in the United States? 

I think we have to ask ourselves why healthcare is so expensive in the first place.  The reason is that medicine is basically a guild, with a very small number (relative to the general population) of practitioners with highly specialized knowledge, able to command a high premium for this knowledge.  Machines/AI is going to bring the cost of everything down.

This has nothing to do with why healthcare is expensive in the US, and it is unfortunate that you blame physician compensation as being the number one culprit.  If you read that ACA thread, I've explained how the insurance system as a whole is largely to blame.  Actually the doctors get cut a rather raw deal.  Unrelated point - If you're coming out of med school with $300,000 in debt (not always unusual), and earning $250,000, that isn't exactly a outlandish lifestyle to say the least.  As a result, the problem is multi-factorial, and spans multiple areas (education, healthcare)

[ofDelusions]

I think a more accurate example would be the UK - a European national with strong welfare benefits, along with an open-door immigration policy that has welcomed people from all over the world, and has become multicultural.  Their system is experiencing considerable abuse due to the influx of Eastern European and Asian immigrants who are not accustomed to first world life, and are perfect content living on the bare minimum of UK standards.

While some 'abuse' surely happens the problem is much overreported by the media. Its also that it is a lot harder for an imigrant from Africa to get a job in here.

[consortium11]

But I think one of the main reasons these types of initiatives work in Nordic countries is due to the overwhelming homogeneity of their populations.  Compared to the United States, those countries have comparatively low immigrant population.  Even among immigrant populations themselves, many more of our immigrants are from 3rd world countries, meaning that given quality of life differences, abuse is much more likely in our case.

1) Switzerland isn't Nordic in geographical location, culture or economic structure. It's often held up as a direct contrast to the Nordic countries.

2) Switzerland is far from being homogenous. It's not a nation state, has four official languages (roughly matching the ethnic and cultural background of different areas of the country), almost a quarter to the population are resident foreigners, about 35% of the population have an immigrant background... and roughly 40% of the resident foreigners come from non-EU/EFTA countries. In contrast the UK has a higher percentage of non-EU/EFTA countries resident foreigners (roughly 68% of the resident foreigners) but a much lower percentage of resident foreigners in total (around 11.3%)... which means overall Switzerland has a higher percentage of foreign residents and a higher percentage of foreign residents from outside the EU.

Moreover, while Switzerland does have a high number of immigrants from France, Germany and Italy it also has large populations from the Balkans, Sri Lanka (primarily Tamils) and Iraqi's who mostly moved there during the various wars in those areas.

[TheGlyphstone]

Switzerland =/= Sweden.

[Valthazar]

I am fully aware that Switzerland isn't Scandanavian or Nordic - I was incorrectly thinking of some articles I had read attempting to compare the Finnish education system to the US, and one of the main criticisms was the racial and demographic differences.  My apologies.

[TheGlyphstone]

One makes clocks, chocolate, and mercenary soldiers. The other makes blond+blue-eyed supermodels. It's an easy mistake to make, don't worry. ;D

[Kythia]

Also, be wary of Swaziland in that "confusing country name" mash up.  No chocolate, clocks, mercenaries, or supermodels -  makes raw sugar, beet, cane and odoriferous substances., apparently.

[IStateYourName]

How about relaunching, or splitting off, this line of discussion in a thread of its own? This is a set of problem knots that are fairly common to much of the western world, and they might appear in China too, in time. Doesn't have anything much to do with the US vs specific other countries to live in.

Except that it does--though I probably poorly articulated that part of it.

I think that some countries will do better at adapting to these trends than others.  I think that the U.S., being basically a right-wing country, is too heavily invested in the industrial, winner-take-all every-person-for-themselves economic model to adapt to this change.  Most other countries believe in dispensing more than air and the "right" to be strip-searched and have your email read as social benefits.

America did a boffo job of implementing and leveraging the industrial model back in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that social and economic model is ill-suited to this century.  History is full of empires that benefited from a given technology or circumstance, but then fell by the wayside as technology and other variables changed and progressed.  I believe America is destined to meet the same fate.

[Lord Pendragon]

Well as a gay guy in Pakistan, nearly all of the options seem to be good to me... lol

[gaggedLouise]

People are now applying to "settle" the planet Mars, and do it on tv, but joining in there is not an alternative I would recommend...  ;)

[IStateYourName]

People are now applying to "settle" the planet Mars, and do it on tv, but joining in there is not an alternative I would recommend...  ;)

If Mars were an Earth-like world, I'd be among the first in line.  But it's not, and it will be centuries, millennia even, before it can be terraformed into anything resembling Earth. 

I think this is more publicity stunt than anything.  I'm a great fan of the 20th-century science fiction epics involving settling other worlds.  But the initial exploration and colonization of other planets will be done by machines, not humans.  In the 2020s and 2030s, we'll send semi-autonomous robots to Mars to build habitat and construct the infrastructure necessary for human colonists.  The humans probably won't follow until the late 2030s or even the 2040s.  They'll land and the robots will give them the keys to their new homes...which, while a little Spartan, will not be mere Quonset huts.

[alextaylor]

I'll try to sell my country: Malaysia

Pros
- Very good grasp of English, former English colony. Almost all good businesses and entertainment utilize English.
- Middle of the line economy. Economy is bad enough that you'll have no trouble seeking employment, and if you're skilled, it's extremely easy to find a high paying job. Economy is good enough that you can buy things from other countries easily.
- Brain drain means that you have very little competition.
- Oil country. If you do any job that involves engineering, you can easily make a lot of money offshore.
- Good entertainment, if you like food and parties and movies.
- Very friendly to white people. Want to get laid with a total stranger? Just be white, male or female.

Bad
- Unstable politics. Not as bad as the region, but not exactly a democracy.
- High corruption. If you're doing business or working in industries, expect to bribe a few people. Unlike Indonesia, we've got a ton of bureaucracy too, so a lot of stuff can be tracked.
- High crime rate. Expect to bribe police too. But this has been clamped down on because of how much it hurt elections last year.
- Some of the most expensive alcohol and cars in the world.
- Horrible drivers and poor public transport.
- Food and culture isn't as good as Europe. Somewhere during our modernization, we went the nerdy Asian route and decided that the arts were worth burning in pursuit of progress. It's picking up, though, as engineers leave their jobs to start restaurants.
- Unfriendly to negroes, but not outright hostile.


Generally, if you're a free spirit like me who enjoys a Wild West lifestyle, it's a great place to turn the world into your oyster without getting shot. It's been said that anyone with a little bravery and charisma can become a millionaire within 20 years.

[Valthazar]

Unfriendly to negroes, but not outright hostile.

Blacks here in the US don't like being called this word, but not sure how things are there.

[Mistyy]

I'll try to sell my country: Malaysia

Pros
- Very good grasp of English, former English colony. Almost all good businesses and entertainment utilize English.
- Middle of the line economy. Economy is bad enough that you'll have no trouble seeking employment, and if you're skilled, it's extremely easy to find a high paying job. Economy is good enough that you can buy things from other countries easily.
- Brain drain means that you have very little competition.
- Oil country. If you do any job that involves engineering, you can easily make a lot of money offshore.
- Good entertainment, if you like food and parties and movies.
- Very friendly to white people. Want to get laid with a total stranger? Just be white, male or female.

Bad
- Unstable politics. Not as bad as the region, but not exactly a democracy.
- High corruption. If you're doing business or working in industries, expect to bribe a few people. Unlike Indonesia, we've got a ton of bureaucracy too, so a lot of stuff can be tracked.
- High crime rate. Expect to bribe police too. But this has been clamped down on because of how much it hurt elections last year.
- Some of the most expensive alcohol and cars in the world.
- Horrible drivers and poor public transport.
- Food and culture isn't as good as Europe. Somewhere during our modernization, we went the nerdy Asian route and decided that the arts were worth burning in pursuit of progress. It's picking up, though, as engineers leave their jobs to start restaurants.
- Unfriendly to negroes, but not outright hostile.


Generally, if you're a free spirit like me who enjoys a Wild West lifestyle, it's a great place to turn the world into your oyster without getting shot. It's been said that anyone with a little bravery and charisma can become a millionaire within 20 years.

Honestly Malaysia is one of the countries I've been thinking of getting to once I get my masters degree. My country(Finland) isn't bad but I REALLY hate the weather here and somewhat depressing atmosphere(News full of negative things etc..) I really appreciate what this country has given me like free education, student allowance so I don't have to work while I study, and the list goes on. But the feeling of cycling to the university in -20 celsius(-4.0 F) is not a nice one. Is it easy for an European to get a job in Malaysia with a STEM degree from one of the best universities in Europe? Well there's some time for my graduation but I've just been thinking about these things.

[Ironwolf85]

I've noticed that a lot of stuff in the US varies by state for example, Texas is very diffrent from California, New England tends to be more socially and economicly progressive than the Dixie States, The Dakotas and the Northwest are also booming while the midwest busts.

I'm wondering if anyone here from the US can tell me about their state or region in case I go looking for a job there.

I'll start with my "region" New England (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusits, Conneticut)

Pros
-Socially Progressive.
-Low Taxes overall.
-Industrial revival taking place along the coast of Maine, and Southern NH
-Low Corruption, New Englanders don't stand for it.
-Low Crime, it exists, but is rare enough that a home invasion shocks people.
-Dense, three hour drive to cross the whole thing.
-Housing is cheaper in the north, so if you work in boston, and take a bus to NH, you'll do very well.
-If you have a higher education you can probably put it to good work in that sweet spot where NH, Mass, Maine, and Vermont, are all within an hour's drive of each other.
-Education and training programs are easy to come by.
-Low unemployment overall.
-States do not require Federal assistance to take care of their employees.
-Unions Still Exist!
-Good Entertainment.
-Still in The United States.

Cons
-Overpopulation, not as bad as japan mind you, but like I said, Dense.
-Rural mill towns are still lagging behind economicly in Northern NH, and inland maine.
-Ball Clenchingly High Taxes in Conneticut.
-Buracracy, you want decent regulation, you will have to fill out some damn forms and do your paper work.
-Suspicious of outside companies, especally the semi-rural towns.
-Still in The United States.

Special notes:
-Sea food is great, "ethnic food" is bad, only the midwest makes worse.
-Again stay the fuck out of the mill towns if you are looking for work, high unemployment, but if you need well trained workers, they provide an eager pool of recruits for your bussness.
-Most New England towns were ravaged by private corporations when they pulled out in the 80's & 90's, the blue collar jobs left "The Rust Belt" the white collar jobs left New England. They are very careful, sometimes too much so, about outside companies moving in as a result. I list this as a Con, as it's retarded growth, but it can also be a positive, if you are into that.

[alextaylor]

Blacks here in the US don't like being called this word, but not sure how things are there.

I don't quite mean African-American. I mean tall black Africans (Nigeria, Sudan, etc) and people who look African :P "Black" isn't used, because there's a lot more black Indians around here. African-American can be seen as more of an insult, more because "American" is a racial slur among some groups. People are more likely to call a white American "orang putih" (white person) than call them an American.

It's not really a major thing, just subtle racism. Kind of like being Arabian in some parts of the Western world. People will misjudge because of the lack of things in common - religion/skin color/language. But they're fine after a few hours of conversation. You're far worse off being Chinese than Negro in Malaysia.

Honestly Malaysia is one of the countries I've been thinking of getting to once I get my masters degree. My country(Finland) isn't bad but I REALLY hate the weather here and somewhat depressing atmosphere(News full of negative things etc..) I really appreciate what this country has given me like free education, student allowance so I don't have to work while I study, and the list goes on. But the feeling of cycling to the university in -20 celsius(-4.0 F) is not a nice one. Is it easy for an European to get a job in Malaysia with a STEM degree from one of the best universities in Europe? Well there's some time for my graduation but I've just been thinking about these things.

Well... thing is that there's a lot of protectionism/nationalism here. I've graduated from a top university but nobody wants to recognize the degree. There's a protectionism on the local degrees. However, you'll find a niche among the more educated people in the country who do graduate from top universities looking for talent.

So basically, while it's not easy to get a job with a degree like that, once you do, you'll be able to climb to the top very fast. I'd suggest maybe getting a couple years experience in your own country. I'd say about 90% of the jobs here expect at least a year's experience, but that's probably the case in every other country.

Oh, the weather here is definitely good. The news here is even more depressing though - every evening, the news channels just slanders the opposition party. But that's just brought up a lot of good alternative media. I've lived in the US, Australia, Saudi Arabia and I honestly don't think there's any media or politics which isn't depressing.

[Valthazar]

Cons
-Still in The United States.

Haha geez you guys seem to really hate our country.  But good thing it's a pro also!

[Rinzler]

I don't recommend England. There's lots of dogshit about, and in some areas - like mine - you have a fortnightly garbage collection which means that the place is overflowing with maggots and stinks to high heaven during summer. Most town centres are no-go areas after dark owing to the violence incurred by the copious amounts of alcohol the natives swill down in the evening to blot out the misery of day-to-day life. True, there's free healthcare, which is a good thing, even though the ruling Tories have made it all but clear they're determined to sell as much as they can get away with to private interests. Pretty much all infrastructure is in private hands, in fact, leading to the peculiar situation that your gas supplier can supply your electricity, and vice-versa. It also means you are plagued with cold calls from various suppliers trying to get you to switch over to them; it also means that though the Tories are adamant that the state should own as few utilities as possible, my local water supplier is actually part owned by a corporation which has received heavy investment from the Chinese government. Go figure. The weather here is just fucking stupid - trust me, the variety will soon lose its charm to any naive newbie visitor. Pissing down, damp and cold in the winter; stinking, humid and frequently pissing down in the Summer. All other countries hate us here, cos our ancestors plundered and pillaged theirs. In fact, thievery is rife here - you can't leave anything alone unless it's nailed down, which probably goes some way to explaining the British Empire: we Limeys in particular were so fond of nicking stuff, we actually used to nick other peoples' countries. Oh, did I mention the dogshit? Fuckin everywhere. Also - overcrowded, noisy towns and cities; you'll rarely have a day go by when you don't hear someone bellowing some obscenity to someone else, nor even have a moment of peace that isn't interrupted by some berk outside whizzing about on one of those grating 'NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' mopeds that's had the exhaust restrictors taken off. Why do they take the restrictors off? Frig knows - it's either to be deliberately irritating, or in the case of one person I knew of, to make the moped sound like a Harley Davidson. Seriously. That's another thing you'll find in England - many, many people here are just as thick as pigshit. In short - it's a tiresome, annoying, noisy place, and you're probably better off where you are unless you're a masochist.

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't recommend England. There's lots of dogshit about, and in some areas - like mine - you have a fortnightly garbage collection which means that the place is overflowing with maggots and stinks to high heaven during summer. Most town centres are no-go areas after dark owing to the violence incurred by the copious amounts of alcohol the natives swill down in the evening to blot out the misery of day-to-day life. True, there's free healthcare, which is a good thing, even though the ruling Tories have made it all but clear they're determined to sell as much as they can get away with to private interests. Pretty much all infrastructure is in private hands, in fact, leading to the peculiar situation that your gas supplier can supply your electricity, and vice-versa. It also means you are plagued with cold calls from various suppliers trying to get you to switch over to them; it also means that though the Tories are adamant that the state should own as few utilities as possible, my local water supplier is actually part owned by a corporation which has received heavy investment from the Chinese government. Go figure. The weather here is just fucking stupid - trust me, the variety will soon lose its charm to any naive newbie visitor. Pissing down, damp and cold in the winter; stinking, humid and frequently pissing down in the Summer. All other countries hate us here, cos our ancestors plundered and pillaged theirs. In fact, thievery is rife here - you can't leave anything alone unless it's nailed down, which probably goes some way to explaining the British Empire: we Limeys in particular were so fond of nicking stuff, we actually used to nick other peoples' countries. Oh, did I mention the dogshit? Fuckin everywhere. Also - overcrowded, noisy towns and cities; you'll rarely have a day go by when you don't hear someone bellowing some obscenity to someone else, nor even have a moment of peace that isn't interrupted by some berk outside whizzing about on one of those grating 'NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' mopeds that's had the exhaust restrictors taken off. Why do they take the restrictors off? Frig knows - it's either to be deliberately irritating, or in the case of one person I knew of, to make the moped sound like a Harley Davidson. Seriously. That's another thing you'll find in England - many, many people here are just as thick as pigshit. In short - it's a tiresome, annoying, noisy place, and you're probably better off where you are unless you're a masochist.

So this is what's behind the 'stiff upper lip'? ;D

[Oniya]

Why am I suddenly tempted to write a take-off on Dorothy Parker's Requiem?

[Rinzler]

So this is what's behind the 'stiff upper lip'? ;D

It's a blank, rigid mask to hide the despair, mate. Trust me.

[Oniya]

It's a blank, rigid mask to hide the despair, mate. Trust me.

Hanging on in quiet desperation
Is the English way
The time is done, the song is over
Thought I'd something more to say...

[Rinzler]

Hanging on in quiet desperation
Is the English way
The time is done, the song is over
Thought I'd something more to say...

Talk about football, go to the pub,
Doghsit in puddles, my mood is lank,
Switch on the telly, but there's sod-all on,
So it's a cup of grey tea and a half-hearted wank.

DeMalachine: Life in England

[Kythia]

Ah, come on now.  The UK isn't bad at all.  Sure, there are some shit bits but with any luck we'll be getting rid of them later this year.  Man, I wish I could vote in that referendum.

[Rinzler]

Ah, come on now.  The UK isn't bad at all.  Sure, there are some shit bits but with any luck we'll be getting rid of them later this year.  Man, I wish I could vote in that referendum.

What, the one the Sweaties are having?

I think it's wrong to blame any ethnic group for a countries ills - frankly, England would still be shit even if we did get rid of the Scots. :-P

[Kythia]

"The inhabitants of Scotland" aren't an ethnic group.

[Rinzler]

"The inhabitants of Scotland" aren't an ethnic group.

They are when they're living in England.

[Kythia]

*shrug*  Some would say the inhabitants of Scotland are, by definition, not living in England.

[Rinzler]

*shrug*  Some would say the inhabitants of Scotland are, by definition, not living in England.

But I wasn't referring to the 'inhabitants of Scotland', but those of Scottish ethnicity.

[Caeli]

I've noticed that a lot of stuff in the US varies by state for example, Texas is very diffrent from California, New England tends to be more socially and economicly progressive than the Dixie States, The Dakotas and the Northwest are also booming while the midwest busts.

I'm wondering if anyone here from the US can tell me about their state or region in case I go looking for a job there.

I would actually say that different areas of California can be very, very different from other areas of California - the Sacramento region vs. the SF Bay Area vs. Southern California (and I have heard that even in SoCal, there is a world of difference between the Los Angeles area vs. San Diego county) vs. everywhere else.  Please keep in mind that these are the only areas that I'm familiar with, given where I grew up and went to college, and where some of my closer friends are from.

Where you tend to end up / move to / look for jobs can be somewhat dependent on your career/industry.  For example, if you're looking to move up and onwards in IT / software engineering or want to work in a start-up, you're going to want to move to the SF Bay Area, though one potentially large con is the cost of living, especially real estate (don't ask me why the south bay was excluded in this article - I asked myself the same question).  What kind of work do you do / hope to do?

[Vonandi]

I think someone already mentioned it but Sweden, Norway and the like are top in equality, working conditions, anti-censorship and a bunch of other things. I assume the grass is indeed always greener on the other side, but I'd love to move there regardless.

[kylie]

         The Guardian managed to find a little dirt from Scandinavia even... 

Not sure I'd take it as enough reason to stop me, though....  If I could somehow afford to live there.

[eiselmann]

Well I'll do a brief on my country

New Zealand.

Pro's

English speaking, thou we do speak as a rule quicker than American's  but once you pick up the accent it should be all good
On of the top three least corrupted nations on the planet
Many Americans talk about freedom as if they own the word , well New Zealand is also a 'free' country, one of many.
We have a strong middle class, so while we have very rich and very poor most people live in the pretty financially comfortable area.
Culturally diverse  , while still predominately European (still part of the British Commonwealth) Maori culture is undergoing a revival and we have a large Asian/Pacific Island communities
Inter-racial relationships are common place ...yes there is racism here and all races are guilty of it, for the most part people don't even factor it in when deciding things like friends and partners.
Its New Zealand
Beaches everywhere mountains clean lakes , rivers ,heck we even have a desert.
The wildlife won't kill you ...thou you'll love weta's (lol)  and kea's in the southern part of the south island will destroy your car.
English common Law ...very strict Judicial and Police independence form political interference....a member of Parliament just resigned his ministerial post because he applied undue pressure on a police investigation.

Con's

Some of this may be pros for you

A deep welfare system..
Health , you can go private but for residents/citizens we have free health care
We are very much to the left of the US political system, are government at the moment is a center-right (very popular Prime minister) coalition that would still be to the left of many of the Democratic Party policies......election coming up end of year due to vagaries of our electoral system it is possible that the most popular government we have ever had will be replaced by the Labour-Green-NZ first -Mana (or some combination thereof) if that happens expect a gigantic lurch to the left....so be aware

There is a degree of anti Americanism out there, not the American's themselves but of its foreign policies, some of its reactionary and is deeply ingrained into the left of the country...elsewise its more a despair that America uses the sledgehammer effect for every decision (not going to buy into an argument on this guys....)
Low wage economy.......if you come here to live and then decide to go back home you almost certainly won't be in as strong financial situation as you were.

Travel to anywhere else...sure we have Aussie across the ditch and pacific islands nearby but for some reason American's think flying here (12 hours from LA) take forever....mate we kiwis when we do our OE which is invariable to England fly for 24 hours.

[Neysha]

That's unfair.  Who wouldn't want to go to Middle Earth.

[ThePrince]

That's unfair.  Who wouldn't want to go to Middle Earth.

Its important to emigrate to countries (and universes) that have at lest a basic understanding of immunization.

Also polio, want to make sure they don't have polio.

[kylie]

Health , you can go private but for residents/citizens we have free health care

          I was curious just how this works, as getting residency in some countries is rather unlikely for many of us, except those who have large bank accounts or very expensive skill sets.  If I understand this page correctly, you only need to establish a home in New Zealand and actually reside there for 184/365 days in two consecutive years.  Which for most people would probably boil down to living there for two years; not everyone can afford to fly away and live elsewhere for the rest. 

          But IF it is not too difficult to be considered "having a home" there (can you just rent?  will the average landlord take a foreigner?) ...  Then this seems like it might be generous.  Though by no means instantaneous...  If you're going for the healthcare, you're going to need quite some time to get it.  I'm not sure if private coverage is much cheaper there, though. 

           ...  With one caveat that if you have a partner (see very bottom of this page), they have to establish residency on their own -- they cannot invoke yours to get most health benefits for themselves, as they might in some other places.

[Hemingway]

Since someone mentioned dirt on Scandinavia, I'd thought I'd take a look at what's said about Norway, and see if it's true.

I'm not sure why any of the points raised would make you not want to live in Norway, as they're more national than individual concerns, but I feltl ike writing, so here are my thoughts.

The dignity and resolve of the Norwegian people in the wake of the attacks by Anders Behring Breivik in July 2011 was deeply impressive, but in September the rightwing, anti-Islamist Progress party – of which Breivik had been an active member for many years – won 16.3% of the vote in the general election, enough to elevate it into coalition government for the first time in its history. There remains a disturbing Islamophobic sub-subculture in Norway. Ask the Danes, and they will tell you that the Norwegians are the most insular and xenophobic of all the Scandinavians, and it is true that since they came into a bit of money in the 1970s the Norwegians have become increasingly Scrooge-like, hoarding their gold, fearful of outsiders.

The party in question has actually declined considerable since the election, after having broken nearly every promise they made. Which is not at all surprising when some of the promises they made were actually impossible for them to keep. The social-democratic Labour Party remains the country's largest party. While it is true that certain segments of Norwegian politics are anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic, rest assured they're a minority, and are called on their lies every time. The Progress Party remains a significant party, but there's a significant distance between their base, and the rest of the population. To suggest that their stances reflect the stances of the overall population, is more than a stretch. Consider also that what is called the left in the US, is basically right-of-center in Norway. The Progress Party is right-wing by Norwegian standards, but they're probably closer to the political center than even the Republican party in the US.

Though 2013 saw a record number of asylum applications to Norway, it granted asylum to fewer than half of them (around 5,000 people), a third of the number that less wealthy Sweden admits (Sweden accepted over 9,000 from Syria alone). In his book Petromania, journalist Simon Sætre warns that the powerful oil lobby is "isolating us and making the country asocial". According to him, his countrymen have been corrupted by their oil money, are working less, retiring earlier, and calling in sick more frequently. And while previous governments have controlled the spending of oil revenues, the new bunch are threatening a splurge which many warn could lead to full-blown Dutch disease.

The first part of this is entirely true, unfortunately.

The latter part, I'm not so sure about. First of all, while the government we elected last year promised tax cuts and reductions in the number of toll roads. What happened? Why, the exact opposite. Because, I suspect, it's easier to make promises like that when you're not trying to balance a real budget. The quote above notes that previous governments have controlled the spending of oil revenues, but doesn't mention that the guidelines for how oil revenues should be managed have been agreed to by all parties except the Progress Party, who control only a small minority of the government. Spending is very unlikely to increase dramatically, as I like to think our politicians are savvy enough to realize what this would mean. But, more on that next.

Like the dealer who never touches his own supply, those dirty frackers the Norwegians boast of using only renewable energy sources, all the while amassing the world's largest sovereign wealth fund selling fossil fuels to the rest of us. As Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen put it to me when I visited his office in Oslo University: "We've always been used to thinking of ourselves as part of the solution, and with the oil we suddenly became part of the problem. Most people are really in denial."

What Hylland Eriksen - probably our most prominent political commentator - says, is true. It's absolutely true that Norway gets most of its energy from renewable sources, while at the same time we peddle our oil to others. It's a massive problem, and it's one, I think, the country will have to come to terms with quite soon. Because of our dependence on oil revenues, we are lagging in many other areas. Notably, Norway is, I believe, the slowest innovator in Scandinavia - and the only field where we're good at innovating, is oil.

I do believe people are waking up to this. The Green Party, who I believe propose shutting down the petroleum industry entirely, are small, but growing. I doubt they'll have the political power necessary to fulfill that goal before we're forced to transition away from oil for other reasons, but it does, I hope, reflect a growing awareness among the population that there is a problem.

[TheWizardofOz]

Since I live here and have for most of my life, here's Australia for you:

Pros - a democratic society, freedom of speech  and religion, an indiginous people with a rich history and culture, a stunning and varied landscape, good quality of living, Decent health, education, social services, weather, Great sporting culture.

Cons - the biggest con that stand out to me is our isolation