The pay may be a lot less here but real estate is way cheaper. For the price of a 1 bedroom apartment in San Francisco you could buy a 4 bedroom house in Waterloo. We have a nice startup scene here that's really expected to take off when the LRT opens up in 2018.
Who wants a 3 hour commute? If you worked at a startup in Waterloo you'd have a 5 minute commute from your 4 bedroom to the office. You could walk to work, just as people do from their really expensive apartments in SF.
Who wants to live in Waterloo? People who enjoy living in expensive apartments in SF probably wouldn't enjoy living in a city that small. They're willing to pay high rents for a reason.
I am a student of the university of Waterloo and I have lived in San Francisco on two separate occasions in both San Francisco / Mountain View.
Are you seriously comparing SF living to Waterloo living? There's a reason it's 1/4 the price. It's a running joke between every single undergraduate student with significant experience in SF that we want to get out of Waterloo.
LRT opening up? That's a joke. How exactly is the LRT going to help the startup scene?
As it stands now, I doubt that many American programmers would be willing to take the pay cut they'd have to accept if they came to work here.
I like it here, and I'm happy with what I make, but when you factor in the exchange rate, a typical US developer would take a huge salary haircut working here; probably 40-50%.
That is true. But there are also a number of perks such as universal health care. So maybe just a certain type of developer would move - one motivated by values rather than money. Perhaps similar to the draft dodgers who came up in the late 60s.
That's definitely true. And don't get me wrong, salaries aren't terrible, all things considered. If you're a dev with a few years experience here, you're likely making significantly more money on your own that they average Canadian family earns.
Sure, but (depending on the area, at least) you can live very comfortably on 50% of what a west-coast US developer makes. Techies tend to forget that our pay rates are way above the national average.
Yeah, I mentioned in another comment that a typical dev salary here is significantly higher than the average family income.
You're spot on w.r.t. most living expenses, too. I've got a big apartment in a part of Toronto that I really like for $1200 a month. Buying a house in this city is another story, though. On my grandfather's street, smallish 3 bedroom detached homes are selling for $1.5 million+.
I live in Nelson BC where the powder skiing is legendary. You can get a very nice 3 bedroom house for USD$ 350k. Granted it's a small town but for the right people it's an incredible place with a small srtarrup scene.
Startup scene? I live not far off, relatively speaking, in fact I went across the border and visited Grand Forks just a few days ago. I've always loved Nelson. I'd move to Canada in a heartbeat but without a job offer in hand you can't "just move there" as an American. One of these winters I've got to make it up to Red Mountain, it's tough to find good powder in E. WA.
How long does it take for paper work to be completed? 1-2 years? And than what? Trump will almost certainly mess up enough (which Dem have warned about) to be out of office after just 1 term. And will they go through the paper work to return to US?
If you can get your paperwork for a TN-1 visa, you just show up at the border with your application and it's approved on-the-spot. It's not a permanent visa, but it gives you time.
I got my postdoc work permit in about...ten minutes?
You show up at the border with your passport, the fee, and few documents from your employer. They do some stuff on the computer and then awkwardly disappear for a few minutes. You pay the cashier and the guard reappears with your completed work permit. Done.
As far as I know, there's also not much paperwork for returning to the US, though you're supposed to inventory all of the stuff you bring back with you.
People are not going to move. After every single election in France people say they will move to the US, or to germany, or to... I've never seen anyone moved anywhere.
ps: parts of my family moved out of Hong Kong when it became Chinese again. But that was quite a different situation.
That's kind of funny. French people is the single biggest source of expats (if we ignore domestic helpers) in Hong Kong. Seems to be very common for French people to emigrate.
Seems unlikely that migrating from France to Hong Kong would be motivated by political reasons (unless you want less democracy). I'm guessing financial motivations dominate.
I remember seeing some article about French brain drain being extremely systematic now, especially among the better schools. Get free schooling in France, then leave.
Obviously I'm in a bit of a bubble (having done this myself) but a lot of my college friends left the country too.
Advice from a french expat in the US: do not. The image of France you have in mind does not exist. Go in vacation in Paris or in the south. It is a beautiful country. But do not move there.
Schooling in France is definitely not free. Public schools (the ones that are free) represent very little amount of the Masters Degree. Most are private schools and cost ~7-10k euros per year.
"Virtually free" can mean somewhere around 2000 Euros a year. A lot of people get aid (I didn't have to pay for my last year thanks to this). Plus most engineering schools don't really use textbooks, so you don't have much in extra expenses apart from a laptop.
Yes, taxes pay for this, but that was my out-of-pocket for schooling.
French tourists are very common in Japan, although I think it might be because of exposure to pop culture rather than emigration. They have an unfortunate habit of strip-mining retro video game stores and reselling everything at ten times the price back home.
I think that's incredibly naive. For one thing, moving from France to Germany is a huge cultural and linguistic leap. Moving from the US to Canada is really not.
The difference in culture may be there, but it is as big and sometimes much bigger between citys and countryside, regions and social classes. It may be a factor but the as I think main reason most people do not move is not any barrier in the different style of life but more so the fact of moving, getting a way from your sorroundings, friends, family etc. altogether
It all depends on individuum. I moved two countries to-date that couldn't be more culturaly and language different. I did learn languages before I moved though. Both me and my wife adapted within a week.
Moving from France to Belgium (in Wallonia where they speak Franch) is not a huge cultural or linguistic leap. As both countries are in the EU, it's very easy to emigrate; no visa needed. But as far as I know, there was no sudden emigration to Belgium after elections in France.
I recently moved from France to Germany, and the biggest cultural gap so far is that people in here respect traffic lights and using a qwerty keyboard. Otherwise, most people speak English and the lifestyle is similar.
Having lived in France I'd say switching from the French keyboard to most other western layouts is especially brutal (or making the switch in the other direction). Took me a good while to readjust to the numbers being on shift and the special characters being the default. Very brutal for passwords :D
Yes, we use QWERTZ in Germany, but it's muuuch closer to QWERTY than France's AZERTY (needs shift for numbers!). The difference between QWERT{Y,Z} is those two keys (Y and Z are swapped), the shape of the enter key (necessitated by an additional key), and basically all of the special keys. Many of those moves are due to ä/ö/ü/ß. Meanwhile, AZERTY is very different, and even typing alphanumerical things requires paying serious attention to key placement if not used to it.
You did not look close enough. French and German culture are very different. How work is done, how meetings are held, being on time, eating, restaurants in general and the food and the drink. Also how friendships work. I'd say french and german culture is one of the most distant in all of (western?) europe.
You have more english speakers in Germany, and the lifestyle is similar, but the lifestyle is similar in all of Europe and even in Europe and USA. But that does not make the culture the same.
> How work is done, how meetings are held, being on time, eating, restaurants in general and the food and the drink. Also how friendships work. I'd say french and german culture is one of the most distant in all of (western?) europe.
Would love to know more. I like to think I know a little about French culture (or could make a guess at it) but I've never been to Germany.
When talking about culture like this, it is always easy to venture into the ordinary, meaningless differences. But I will provide some examples. Together they maybe form a picture.
Germans have that klischee about being punctual and organized, no? Well, it is true, and it is very different in France. Meetings don't start on time, even in the workplace. But also when you meet up with friends, you don't have to be there on time, and it is seldom expected. It is not as crazy as in Africa or latin america, but if you meet in a bar at 7pm people will arrive 7:15 or 7:30. That was difficult in the beginning. Of course, also happens in Germany, but to a lesser extent.
This translates to other things: I was the first PhD student of my french professor who actually finished his thesis before the deadline. We made a plan, I sticked to it. She fully expected we would run late and was quite surprised. Also, in the international project I was working on, our french colleagues had the tendency to not fully respect the deadlines. That was actually a positive thing, because the deadlines were crazy and instead work was always done when needed, not when the plan saw it fit, leading to a better work distribution.
Food. The coffee is different in France. Meals take longer, also the lunch break does. Entrée, main course, dessert – way more common to have it all. There is a whole restaurant culture in France that is way different than in Germany, with people of the middle class eating in restaurants every week at least once, and with many many more restaurant than in an equally sized german town.
There is also a difference in how people dress. Depends on the place and setting of course, and you can't easily compare Berlin and Paris anyway. But still, it is noticeable also in other cities. There is another standard.
The thing with friends is hard to describe and it also changes anyway depending on age and setting, no matter where you are probably. And I won't go into the topic of women. Something else then: You have in France these really friendly french men who really talk a lot. Very easy to talk to, as they will just start the conversation and help you along, which is quite nice when you meet new colleagues. But in Germany that would mean that someone is really interested in becoming a friend. Here it is just the default for some, it means nothing special.
For having moved to quite a bunch of places in my life (and also had a german girlfriend), France and Germany have a pretty similar culture. There is a lot of influence between the two countries.
'I didn't "flee" America. What I fled are tribalistic homo-apes who have reverted back to simply responding to their instincts. Just a bunch of reactionary emotions without rational thought.'
Getting across the border is the easy part - getting healthcare, a drivers license, a job etc would be the hard part. Those are much easier to pull off sneaking in to the US than Canada.
Things mostly have not become bad enough to move. I think Trump will be more Berlusconi than Mussolini. I hope so at least. I also wonder what it'd take to make us grab what we can and get out. If things start heading that way, it's a decision you really, really don't want to put off too long.
I have always felt that Mussolini was a more apt comparison. For one thing, nobody's ever heard of Trump shout himself hoarse about Lebensraum. (And without Hitler's aggression, it's highly doubtful that Mussolini would have gotten himself involved in a European war.)
For what it's worth I find the Mussolinian architecture extremely modernist and quite interesting (https://www.google.ro/search?q=architettura+fascista+italia&...). Whenever I visit Italy I always find some interesting building or public-works structure from the Mussolini era which I photograph.
> I can't believe this is the first time I've seen someone NOT compare Trump to Hitler.
What those two have in common is they fit the definition of the word 'demagogue' 100%, point by point. Along with many, many others (numerous political figures in Europe in the '30s, Huey Long, senator McCarthy, etc).
Hitler, however, was far more effective than everyone on that list.
Well, at least so far. But even so, Hitler's charisma and ability to emotionally be a puppet master to enormous masses while spewing bullshit appears to be unparalleled in history.
Based on what we've seen so far, the Berlusconi comparison seems best. Knock on wood.
I hope so. Berlusconi "only" contributed to Italy's economy stagnating for 20 years and loss of standing in the eyes of the world. He wasn't really a fascist, much as some on the left tried to label him one.
I moved to Canada from the US because of the G.W. Bush presidency. I'm not claiming it's statistically important, but my family moved. I'm lucky enough to be employable wherever I choose to live, so I exercised that power. Maybe you can too.
Stay away from Vancouver. Between the cost of living, low wages, and (What passes in Canada as an) extreme right-wing provincial government, it's a horror show.
Agreed. You have to deal with unbelievable weather much of the year. Then there's those oppressive mountains just to the north and the incredible skiing within an hours drive. Next you have to deal with the all the beautiful scenery, awesome hiking and biking. It's just horrible. Don't move to Vancouver.
Not sure about wages. I feel I'm paid a fair salary.
> You have to deal with unbelievable weather much of the year.
As the saying goes - "It rains only once, but for seven months (October through April)."
> oppressive mountains
Actually, said mountains limit traveling northbound (there's a single road that goes to Whistler), there's an ocean to the west, farmlands to the east and the US border with few hour wait crossing times to the south. So you are basically stuck in the city. It is a big city and lots to do, granted, but after a while it gets stale.
> incredible skiing, biking, hiking
... which don't move a needle unless you are a hardcore outdoorsman.
Not to forget the real estate chokeful of Chinese money and priced out of reach. School system that is focused on producing tolerant citizens rather than someone how knows what an integral is, etc.
On the plus side - a mild climate, very good restaurant scene, nice people and nearly free medicine (which is too not without its headaches).
I was out walking around in shorts and a t-shirt yesterday, comfortably. High of 17 degrees. I've never done that in Canada, and I used to be much less of a wuss about the cold. The climate in Vancouver really is hard to beat in Canada.
Yes. Be wary. I lived in Vancouver for 3 years, 2012-2015. Those mountains sucked. As did the ocean. And the ability to walk everywhere downtown. Total pain being able to walk to work, shop, dine, etc.
kidding aside ... Yes ... I earned less $ ... But was ok with it.
I live in Vancouver. Cost of living looks bad. Quality of life is good. I look out of the window of the window of my smallish condo at the beautiful mountains and all seems well.
It's tough to live in this town on the median local income. Get a very good job before you move here. There are much more affordable Canadian cities with the same social deal and without the Vancouver housing crisis. But if you can make it work, this is a nice place.
I'd add "don't plan on living in Vancouver itself". Vancouver is like San Francisco: A relatively small and frequently dysfunctional city surrounded by a much superior metropolitan area. I'd suggest Burnaby or Coquitlam as places with a better lifestyle at a lower cost.
I'm from the Coquitlam/Burnaby area (Burquitlam they call it). It's where you go when you want to live close to vancouver but also have a detached house, although in recent years that has also become unattainable.
It's a suburban area though, which is great if you're into that. If you want an urban car-free experience there's only a very tiny part of downtown, yaletown and maybe olympic village that will accomodate that.
Those who have not lived outside of the US (or NA) don't realize how hard life is for the rest of the world; most will just move right back within months.
Been there myself. Life ain't easy out there.
Edit - A little bit of context here: I am speaking as someone who was born and raised in a developing country rife with racial and political problems. My point is, a lot of people who are yelling about immigrating due to the election result are overly naive with their outlook. It takes an incredible amount of effort to adjust to a new environment, not to speak of giving up the connections and comfort they have in the US. It's not as easy as just "moving to another country".
I still don't understand your comment. People who are thinking about emigrating because of Trump are thinking about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc., not a third world country.
Canada and the US are virtually equivalent in most respect for jobs, standard of living etc... I'm from Canada, and now live in the US, I lived in north Florida and have seen people struggle incredibly compared to anyone I can think of in Canada. Even the poorest in Canada can at least see a doctor when they really need it. I know many people who are about to lose their only option to healthcare if ACA is repelled. They'd be better off in Canada.
Some of them are truly shocking. My mind is consistently blown when I go because I don't get that remote more than a few times a year but they are unbelievable.
I moved UK->DK a year ago, ahead of the rush. I said I would, if UKIP got too many votes in the European election.
Since then, two friends have moved from London to Berlin, two others are planning to move to Frankfurt, two others have job offers in Stockholm or Malmø. (This is three couples.) Another friend has applied for a position in Lund.
Only 3/7 of these people are British, so the other 4 have already made a similar move.
Campaign promises are made to get elected, not to be kept. Given Trump's tendency to speak, shall we say, "freely", he is likely to be a much more moderate president than his campaign promises would suggest. Not that that is saying very much, but I think much of the panic and disbelief surrounding a Trump win arises from taking his words too seriously and too literally.
All I can say is that if your hope for a politician hinges on him not doing what he's expressly said he plans to do many times, that's a terrifying situation to be in.
It will be interesting to see if people leave specially if announcements were made on FB/Twitter. The convenience of online medium and harshness of offline life can't be beat.
If Le Pen manage to be president in May 2017, I'll seriously consider moving from the country. But to go where? Maybe Luxembourg, they've got a shit ton of work in my field (web dev), they pay way more than in France but life is a bit more expensive and foreign workers aren't apprecieted in the whole country.
With Trump elected today, the right wings movement in France will get bigger :(
I myself moved from Switzerland to Colombia. Among other reasons because I wanted a break from the Swiss cultural and political climate.
But for me, emigrating isn't a definite thing. At least as long as I don't have children. Maybe I'll stay, maybe go back, maybe move somewhere else after a while.
As someone who spent ten years in Panama and working for a Swiss company, that must have been a culture shock after Switzerland. Did you speak Spanish before you moved?
Added up, I have spent almost two years in Latin America prior to moving here. Just traveling the first time and traveling plus working remotely the second time. So I already spoke the language quite well and roughly knew what to expect. I didn't expect the grass to be greener. Just greener in some parts, browner in others.
Also I like being culture shocked – it tends to widen my horizon :)
Yeah definitely greener in some places and browner in other, I couldn't agree more. But it was a good experience for me too, I married a Panamanian. Plus no income or property tax was just an incredible benefit, I miss that a lot! I'll go back there when I can, just for the taxes.
Canada seems appealing to Americans until you realize you could be earning more in the U.S. while spending less on a bunch of other things.
Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada and I mostly don't miss living in Bay Area, but most of my friends lament the fact that their salary and career opportunities are a joke compared to what they could have in the U.S. (even adjusting for cost of living).
Canada would be an odd choice for many reasons, but is probably attractive for the combination of proximity, and cultural/linguistic similarities. For me, I've been looking at Ireland, Denmark, or the Netherlands for a while, and I'd say they're looking far more attractive today than yesterday.
Besides, money isn't everything. There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites, and insane levels of violence too. Not to mention the impact this will have on the SCOTUS, and how incredibly screwed up healthcare is.
If you didn't read the newspaper, how many of the negative things you mentioned would actually impact your life? Would you even know who was president for the last 4 (or the next 4) based on the impacts to your life? I'd guess not.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.
After two or three conservative justices are appointed the court your life will be mega affected. Are you gay? Kiss gay marriage goodbye. Right to privacy ? Gone. Wanna buy or own a sex toy? Those were illegal in many states until a progressive court put an end to it. A conservative court will absolutely reverse that.
Gay marriage is here to stay because of a massive shift in public opinion on the issue which has been taking place over decades. None of that is going away.
All it will take is a reversion to "let the states decide", which may also be what we see with issues such as abortion. What scares me though, are the decisions like Citizens United, issues with privacy and regulatory oversight, and that kind of thing.
Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion"
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch.
I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
> No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since?
Well most of the state and city bans to limit the 2nd amendment were struck down by the courts.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
He said a lot of things which appealed to certain voters but pretty clearly aren't going to happen. His style is to overstate. People on the other side taking his words literally has led to a lot of fear.
History is pretty consistent that candidates actually do try to enact what they say during campaigns... Anyone expecting a suddenly different President Trump vs. Candidate Trump will likely be in for a surprise.
Trump has said many things that contradict reality. These are clearly lies. Trump has said many things that contradict other things that he has said. These indicate more lies. Trump has made many promises regarding policy. There is no reason to believe these to be lies. I am hopeful that they are, but it is just a hope.
Come on, be realistic. The guy would say anything to get votes. He is just like my Swedish politicians [0]. So what will the US and the rest of the world get? I don't know. You don't know. I'm not even certain that Trump knows.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
An an actual repeal of Roe v. Wade (or Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unlikely. It's mainly red meat for the base. To actually do it would be political suicide of the type we saw when an unpopular ACA was passed.
Can you point to some supreme court cases? One that comes to mind is Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the "sodomy law" by a largely republican court (I think only one or two justices were democratic at the time)
That's a gross misstatement of Citizens United. People do not give up their right to free speech by forming a voluntary organization (aka a corporation). We know this is true because we allow corporations and organizations like the New York Times, the ACLU, and the Teamsters unions to have a right to free speech.
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
However, as long as you are not directly affected by any of those, e.g. you are not LBGTQ, you might consider staying to defend LGBTQ rights and thereby have a more meaningful impact. Even if you're not a politician, voting, educating your children and talking to friends and coworkers can have a significant impact.
Justices are people. People change their views as they age.
Justice Robert's had a conservative record; Then he saved Obama Care.
At least up to 1989, there was no real predictability of Supreme Court Justices. I got the question wrong on a test. I'm lying--I got it right. I was trying to prove a point, by being theatrical.
I had a Professor drilled this paradoxical observation into our heads. He pointed to studies, but I'm too tired to look them up. It was in a national textbook.
Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got a mandate to take action against the media and free speech on the internet. What's left?
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience.
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support.
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
In what way am I spamming, and in what way is pointing out that a generation-long shift to the Right is going to be the result of this election via the SCOTUS?
Live somewhere like CA? Hard to see the state government or Supreme Court rolling things back too terribly. Health insurance if you don't have a good job would be a big question mark, would be nice to see the state pick that up.
Live in a state where the legislature is inclined to pass laws against your sexuality, religion, etc? That's a much more vulnerable position.
IMO a much larger problem than Trump is the structural favoritism in the American political system towards less-populated areas. This has a lot to do with how Obama's last term was largely sabotaged as well, after all.
That "structural favouritism towards less populated areas" is a very old design feature of American democracy. Without it, everywhere but a small band in each coast would become politically irrelevant, much like it's already ignored by the media.
Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind.
Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system?
Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done.
(And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
She campaigned for the electoral vote, not for the popular vote.
You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
Yes. I have two sisters that could lose access to birth control and planned parenthood. One of them dates a black man and already gets racial slurs thrown at them in public. These results are only going to embolden that behavior. America has voted for a mysogynistic sexist at its highest ceremonial office, you don't think that affects what is acceptable discourse? You don't think the SCOTUS is changed for a generation now?
It's not just a trump presidency, it's a trump presidency rubber stamping a republican house and senate, which will follow through on their stated intention to install judges to repeal Roe V Wade, and to establish a more conservative, evangelical agenda.
That's a big oft-overlooked point: Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party (and he didn't win on a very Republican platform), but the problem is that he also will likely not be in a position to contradict or overrule the party on those issues (or terribly inclined to do so in the first place).
The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.
<The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.>
Did you forget that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate until 2011? In fact, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until February of 2010.
Yes, they controlled it and then lost it. As opposed to controlling and maintaining. Doesn't that speak to a growing disconnect between them and the people voting on those seats (phrased as such to acknowledge both political changes and redistricting ones)?
> Trump seems to have much more moderate views on social issues than the Republican Party
Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
I grew up and lived most of my life in America, then emigrated to a country with universal healthcare (the UK). When I developed a life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered, the National Health Service saved my life.
These things don't matter until they really, really, really do. Having seen the grass on both sides of the fence, I can attest that it really can be meaningfully greener.
Long-term back pain that counted as a pre-existing condition for every insurance package I had, on the rare occasions when I could afford to be insured. That eventually degenerated into a couple of prolapsed disc that cut off the nerves to may legs, resulting in constant pain (the kind that leaves you screaming and writhing without a constant morphine drip) and making it impossible to walk, sit up, or go to the bathroom unaided. While not technically a life-threatening condition, my quality of life was low enough that I certainly would have committed suicide had it persisted indefinitely.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
Long-term back pain that counted as a pre-existing condition for every insurance package I had, on the rare occasions when I could afford to be insured. That eventually degenerated into a couple of prolapsed disc that cut off the nerves to may legs, resulting in constant pain (the kind that leaves you screaming and writhing without a constant morphine drip) and making it impossible to walk, sit up, or go to the bathroom unaided. While not technically a life-threatening condition, my quality of life was low enough that I certainly would have committed suicide had it persisted indefinitely.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
> "life-threatening condition which my US insurance would never have covered"
I wonder how is that possible? Insurance plans these days have to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition, even the cheapest plans cover everything after a deductible, unless I am missing something
Thank Obamacare for that, and that only kicked in on 2011. Prior to that, insurance recission was a real and pervasive issue for those with preexisting conditions.
> You have to wonder how long 'Obamacare' is going to last now with a Republican president, congress and senate...
I don't think the Republicans have enough people in the Senate to block filibusters. So I assume the Democrats will use the filibuster to block repeals of the healthcare law.
Why in the world would the GOP ever leave the filibuster in place? Mitch will remove it at the beginning of the 115th Congress.
Boom. Now Obamacare can be repealed with simple majority. I bet you dollars to donuts that insurance prices, however, will not go back down to pre-Obamacare prices. Because profits.
The fact that prices went up at all shows there is a huge problem. We're already paying more than anyone else in the world, why can't we get something for our money instead of having to pay even more?
To give you an example - my dad had to take 2 boxes of Glivec per month to keep him alive(he was predicted to survive 3-6 months, thanks to Glivec he lived another 8 years). Glivec, last time I checked, is currently 12 thousand dollars a box in US. And sure, most health insurance in US would cover most of that. But if you have to take two $12k boxes per month, and insurer says they will cover $10k per box, you suddenly have to find $4k per month just to buy your life saving medicine. In effect sure, you have insurance, but unless you are rich, you are fucked. The whole idea of deductible on health insurance is pretty much a US-only invention, and it literally kills people who are in theory "covered".
As a fairly young US citizen I'm curious, I thought that most health care plans have an out of pocket maximum that is usually in the low to mid thousands per year. Would this situation not be one that limits the yearly cost that way?
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
Average rent ranges from $500-$3600/mth though for illustrative purposes (taking into account people in expensive places share) let's use $1K/mth for our hypothetical person. [3]
That leaves you with $16K/yr (male) and $7K/yr (female) for food, transportation and incidental expenses.
Obamacare backed health plans have a maximum out-of-pocket of $7K/yr for individuals.
Yeah, I'd say the median American is pretty much SOL if they get sick even if they have insurance. And those figures don't take into account the price of the insurance itself if your employer elects not to provide it to you.
In the UK your NHS annual out-of-pocket maximum is $0.
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
The tax calculator you reference includes estimates of sales, property, and fuel taxes (which make up much of the tax total at the incomes here), which are actually rolled into rent, transportation, and general purchases, so you are double counting some expenses.
Obamacare added three provisions in particular that affected my family. Annual and lifetime caps on coverage were banned, dropping sick policyholders was banned, and all plans were required to set maximum out-of-pocket costs.
My family has easily hit the pre-Obamacare lifetime coverage limits and fairly frequently would've hit the annual ones. Our $4k out-of-pocket cap saves us from 10-50k in coinsurance/copays depending on the year. As a result, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they could.
Based on Republican control of House, Senate, and White House, their having explicitly stated they'd repeal Obamacare, and the ability to do a lot of damage to the law without risking a filibuster (which they can do away with entirely, incidentally). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/the-future-of-obama...
I've gotten a pavlovian response to "good things", where I start imagining it already breaking down.
Like Obamas presidency. For every good he's done or tried to do, all the shit in the world that affects the US (and even things that are not real apparently) gets pinned on him, regardless of cause.
And sure, Obamacare probably has a lot of faults, but is that because of its concept, because of congressional gridlock, or compromises?
I won't argue either way, but it's always sad when something gets dismantled or at least scolded for reasons outside of its grasp.
I don't know enough about NHS to say, but spending £600M/year on management consultants doesn't sound like a healthcare problem.
I'm not religious, but it's the same with Islam being lumped together with extremists, Christianity being lumped in with crusades and westboro baptists and other lunatics, and both republicans and liberals being categorized by a few vocal idiots.
Sometimes you have to try to look objectively at something and the faults alongside it, and try to determine if they are one and the same. Sometimes it's worth fighting to improve something instead of just burning it to the ground, because there's a good chance the new foundation being built is worse than what you destroyed.
They are and we aren't fighting back tooth and nail to stop them.
We just let them do it because we (collective we) have grown so used to having it we can't remember what it was like before, people dying from treatable conditions because they couldn't afford it, average life expectancy been a whole decade lower (or more) etc.
We (again collective) won't realise what we had until it's gone.
My filthy tories voting friends do actually agree that police, nhs, fire services, etc are worth spending money on. I think the Tories have lost sight of what is important to their supporters.
It's true, but at the end of the day you can already see that we're not going to do a damned meaningful thing about it whoever gets elected. The kinds of changes needed are not going to come about in a timely fashion, and when we start to move, it will be far too late (if it isn't already). On that point at least, our fate is sealed.
LGBT people, of which there are many here, have every reason to be afraid. Mike Pence has been vocal about his feelings w.r.t. how these people should be "treated".
And with the ability to set a Justice and a party dominated House and Senate, it does not look very good for "checks and balances" over the next 4 years.
And that of course assumes you're not subject to deportation for whatever reason. If Trump keeps any of his campaign promises we will be seeing many people forced out of the country. No idea what the extent of that will be, and at least some people here are first generation and claim to be anchors.
Copenhagen and Amsterdam are incredible places to live, and Amsterdam in particular has the benefit of a population which overwhelmingly speaks English, and is... a little less depressive than the Danish.
That does not offset it at all. Unless you've got a ridiculously strong character, or a group of friends that will force you to do something with them, I wouldn't recommend it. Or at least have a backup plan if you start going crazy by November.
Glad you like it, I think it's a fantastic city to be in if you have a good job. Of course, you won't make insane amounts of money like in London or the US but since you're European I guess you already have a similar mindset.
This is what I like over here:
- Big city but you can walk almost everywhere
- Weather is great
- Airport is 20min subway from city centre
- People are friendly, most speak some sort of english
- Tech scene is getting better every year
- No gentrification yet
There are advantages on being on central or northern europe instead, but if I was in my 20s I would definitely come to Lisbon.
Very true. I run my own business and so get the best of both worlds (UK salary, Lisbon cost of living) but it would be a harder choice if I was in my twenties and earning locally. I sincerely hope that will change for the better over the next few years as the Lisbon tech scene continues to mature.
I'm Portuguese and live near Lisbon (and used to work for a startup in Lisbon). If you're looking for high paying jobs, look elsewhere, as developer jobs here are around 1500€-1800€ / month (* 14 months, after taxes), way below what people are getting paid in other countries.
However, if you decide to live outside of Lisbon where rents are very high, that amount of money is enough for you to live well and even save some money if you're somewhat frugal. Also, the weather is usually quite nice here, and if you're into that kind of things, there's a booming tech scene is Lisbon (web summit is here for this week).
Unfortunately, most of the jobs people take here are on outsourcing companies, but there is an increasing number of jobs available on local startups. If you're planning to move here, check jobs in http://landing.jobs/ (mostly startups).
Just forget Europe. It's ridden with socialists and laws slowing business to a halt. Add a failing currency to that cocktail and you have a failing economy. Of the whole of Europe, only Switzerland is somewhat attractive.
Only if you speak German and are able to deal with their not very welcoming nature, you might stand a chance. I know a couple of expats who had everything in their favor (language, skills, local connections) and after 5-10 years still decided to move to Austria and Germany.
Honestly it's the latter that scares me, given Europe's history, and the likelihood of massive migration from the Middle East and Africa in the coming decades.
That's an odd way to put it. To counterbalance, europe in general is far less litigious and you get public healthcare. Come to to northern europe and you get a stable, very non-corrupt governance and a highly educated workforce.
US has huge internal markets - I would see this as the main benefit. Otherwise than that, if you make an actual good product, know marketing and are not terribly dependent on US VC money (which is hardly the only source of capital) I fail to to see the problem.
Sure, there are laws for holidays and such but that does not limit business, IMO, only the amount of arbitrary power employers have over their employees. It does not limit global market opportunities in any way.
It would be harder to launch a service like Uber though that tries to take on entrenched incumbent local players. Target global b2b or consumer markets and the problem goes away.
All of this is my personal understanding, and I might be wrong. If so, then please educate me with countering facts.
Canada has public healthcare as well, although it's probably worse than US paid for healtchcare. Public healthcare usually means long queues and substandard health services. It's okay if you're poor, but that's why in Europre we also paying for private health insurance when we can afford it. In the US you have the option not to pay for health insurance, in Europe you have to pay for it regardless of what you get in return. France is probably different, but Franch healthcare is going broke so it will only get worse if they don't do something about it soon enough.
Most of the big business in Europe is either 1. American 2. state owned or 3. companies founded before before WW1. It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. You would get kocked down by taxes and regulations before you know it.
" It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. "
I'm pretty sure the market is filled with unregulated niches that don't require you to shift the balance of the universe to be successful.
Yes, US seems to be winning in terms of environment which facilitates the rapid growth of paradigm shifting companies. I did not claim otherwise - I merely countered the proposal that it would be counterproductive to try to do business in Europe altogether. Not as inducive to growth is a different thing from disabling profitable companies altogether.
I'm hard pressed to quantify the quality of public healthcare. Patient outcomes are a different thing than what the service feels like. I agree, it's sometimes painstakingly hard to find good healthcare but in my experience that applies to both public and private as equally - the more rare the condition, the harder it is to find a helpful diagnosis and a plan to proceed.
The professional capability of the tending doctor is the most critical factor. I've met outstanding professionals in the public space and private clinic doctors who have been sloppy and unattentive - and vise versa.
Of course, if budgets strain, the quality of care decreases.
All healthcare systems have their faults. It isn't like folks never wait for care in the US: Some folks wait months for a neurologist, for example, mostly becasue they are booked up.
I'm in Norway. There is public health care. Sometimes there is a wait, sometimes not. You have the option to pay for private care, if you want. But I'm never going to have to worry about not being able to afford care. This alone makes a huge lifestyle change. Not just for me: But for children and lots of other folks as well.
In addition, some caveats of care are much better here. You can choose the cheaper but better outcomed care option. For example, they send a nurse out to someone's house up to 6 times a day before someone is eligible for a nursing home. Even if you live in a secluded spot on a mountain or island. Why? It is cheaper and folks tend to live longer this way.
Home health is a significant practice in the US. I can't give a pithy summary of it, but Medicare pays for it in many situations where a nursing home is not medically necessary.
You're not eligible for the home health benefit if you need more than part-time or "intermittent" skilled nursing care.
Now, the mouse over says that 'part time or intermittent' means less than 7 days each week or less than 8 hours each day over a period of 21 days or less - unless you have special circumstances. In other words, sure, as long as it is temporary.In addition, you have to be homebound, only leaving for short, infrequent things for medical care, religious services, and the like.
I'm not even sure most folks know that stuff exists judging by how many people take care of their elderly parents. Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Here it isn't a short term situation. You get a nurse for up to 6 visits a day, even if you need all 6 visits every day for 10 years. In fact, you aren't eligible for a nursing home unless your needs exceed this. It isn't so much if you are homebound, but that you need the medical care (though you might be mostly homebound with that).
Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Reimbursement for a stay in a nursing home would also be subject to a doctor deeming it necessary (and also whatever rules Medicare has about it), home care is just a lower level of care in that sense.
I wasn't really trying to compare the programs, I just saw the possibility in your comment that were not very aware of it in the US.
I probably compare out of habit. I'm American and am immigrant here in Norway - I note differences, and the stuff that is similar isn't so noteworthy. Neither system is perfect.
Reimbursement for the nursing homes... admittedly, most of what I know about payment for american nursing homes is probably rumor, "friend of a friend lost had to sell the house for the nursing home payment" sort of thing. Didn't pay much attention, then was taught the cost in class here in Norway.
Yeah, coverage is limited. There are a wide variety of long term care options that can easily run into thousands per month, so someone with a fixed income that won't cover that will end up selling assets until they qualify for Medicaid.
"attractive for the combination of proximity, and cultural/linguistic similarities... There is something to be said for not having to deal with the ... insane levels of violence too."
If you just take the above elements of your reasoning, you've just described White flight.
I mean, if there was a State in the US where guns were realistically outlawed I'd move there too. Implying that is "white" flight is implying that white people are not major perpetrators of gun violence in America, which simply isn't true.
Gun violence in the US is a major problem and our gun ownership and sales policies are at the heart of it. I've considered moving my family away from it long before this horrifying outcome.
The murder rate for whites in the US (i.e. the rate at which whites are murdered) is 2.5 per 100,000 much lower than the overall murder rate of 5.2 per 100,000. This is still higher than most of the West, e.g. 70% higher than Canada. But not the "extreme levels" you referred to earlier.
And you didn't mention guns before, I'm assuming you don't really only care about violence that comes out of the barrel of a gun, and you're just adding this now to avoid discussing the link between race and crime.
I'm not saying from it, although I think that it's not difficult to demonstrate that a disenfranchised group with poor economic prospects tends to self-radicalize.
I don't view a ton of difference between extremist terrorist conscription and, say, gang violence.
I think many of the same triggers are exploited. And you see those same triggers at play in traditionally white "militia" folks as well.
Pretty good. Lot's of opportunity for an American. Cost of living and taxes are very high, but then there is of course public healthcare, schools and education paid by taxes.
I can only speak for myself having lived in Copenhagen/Boston/NYC; cost of living is lower in Copenhagen, but so are salaries, expect a huge cut in pay as well as on your ability to live a comfortable life on a tech salary.
In NYC I can do a normal sit down lunch at $40 multiple times a week, without really batting an eye - whereas that would be painful in Denmark - on the plus side you usually have catered lunch which quality, choice and taste wise is not nearly as good, but significantly cheaper and with it being better for team work within the company.
For health care you should expect longer lines and significant delays in case you have a non-urgent issue; whereas that in NYC is something you can handle easily by setting up an appointment on Zocdoc so that you can see a specialist the next day - with it being covered by your health insurance.
On a NYC tech salary I tend to buy gadgets / items as often as I want, if the cost is below maybe $200, in Denmark that threshold is more like $60.
Vacation policies are generally substantially better in Denmark; and workload also being significantly lower.
It's tough for me to say - I've generally been doing 40-70 hours a week in NYC, and average in Copenhagen is more like 35 (defacto); In NYC I'm expected - more or less - to be available 24/7 incase of outage / stability issues, wrt my company, whereas it in Denmark is more about the client/company adjusting to your work schedule, and them living with potential outages.
Healthcare in Denmark is just fine in my opinion. We also hold a private insurance through work.
What is it you feel you need to wait for?
Also, in regards to salary: Yes, it's lower overall. But it's still high, especially in the tech sector. I get paid roughly the same as my US counterparts (we have offices in Copenhagen and New York).
I think the biggest obstacle was for my wife to connect with other Danish women. Basically how to find friends, since social norms and culture is different.
That lasted 6 months, and she now has a big group of friends consisting of expats/danes.
Job opportunities are very good, especially if you work within healthcare, engineering or similar fields. There's a shortage in the workforce for highly qualified workers.
Suffice to say not exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom for all. But it might work for white techno elites for whom being not in US/UK and writing web apps is all they want.
It's also the same if you get government benefits. If your wealth exceeds 10.000 DKK, you will have to use your own money to get by, until you run out.
How did you handle permanent residency requirements for your wife?
I'm a Danish citizen, with the fiancé being a US citizen - and my understanding is that it wouldn't be easy for us to live in Denmark due to us having an unreasonable burden in demonstrating attachment to Denmark vs the US (https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/07/nye-regler-famili...) --- and with the president-elect having talked about pausing legal immigration for 1-2 years it makes for pretty scary times as my employer currently is applying for PERM status for me (meaning things could be paused randomly by the president - and with no where for us to go but maybe Canada/other European countries)
She's doesn't hold a permanent visa yet. It needs renewal every year, and after 5 years, she just needs to apply for a permanent one. We were lucky, since I have 3 kids from a previous relationship, so my attachment to Denmark is nonnegotiable. It took 5 months for our family reunification visa to go through.
In regards to your visa in the US, I think you should just wait it out. I doubt it'll get paused overnight, since the business impacts would be too great.
Why throw in 'whites' like it's some derogatory adjective? Are bitter uneducated blacks or hispanics preferable? Besides that, people without a college degree are not necessarily stupid or not allowed to have a voice.
I'm not throwing anything in, I'm just describing the relevant demographic that's been unable to accept that Obama wasn't a "secret muslim" or "not really american" or some similar horseshit.
If you're in tech, Sweden is a more attractive opportunity. It's pretty similar to the Netherlands culture wise, but with a much bigger and faster moving tech scene.
That said, any in that line up will be a bit of a culture shock coming from the US.
Agreed on the culture-shock. None of it will be too bad, probably, but there are enough little differences that it'll take a while to adjust, and not all people can/will manage it.
Source: Scottish, moved to Finland.
(Biggest pain-points for me: the Finnish language, and the brutal winters.)
If I'm programmer/developer looking for job in Sweden where can I find offers? How do you feel about taxes in Sweden? Aren't they very high in nordic countries?
I'm in Norway. And yes, taxes are high, but then again, they really aren't.
I think when I did the math, the taxes weren't really all that much higher than the taxes + health insurance costs in the states. It feels more like I'm paying a tax instead of outright fees for some things. Some I don't notice as much - such as the 25% VAT, mostly because it is included in the listed price.
Cost of living is high here, but Sweden is supposedly cheaper. Enough that there is a bus that goes over the border for Norwegians to shop.
"There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites..."
This is exactly the sentiment that has brought us to this point. Either you are tolerant, inclusive or you are not. Try respecting the thoughts and options of others instead of leveling insults. Equality demands that people that differ from you still get a voice.
I've lived in all these countries for a several years each, other than the Netherlands. It's straight up comical you think that you could see them as more attractive than Canada. I wish you the best in being a foreigner for the rest of your life.
> You know that most people don't care about earning SV salary right?
This does not apply only to high-income Americans. In fact, the downsides of a reduced salary are much worse for people with average and low incomes.
It's become pretty obvious since the 2008 recession that people of low incomes, or even average incomes, have few means to control the circumstances of their lives. They are at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control. Another recession would victimize them again, and they would be powerless to improve their circumstances.
Americans moving to Canada, whether or not they are high-paid tech workers, will almost certainly take a lower salary in Canada than the one they have in the US, for doing the same job. The safety net in Canada isn't that much better than the one in the US, aside from the obvious exception of free health care. So, a lower salary would be a pretty big sacrifice to make, because it would worsen the problems I mentioned above.
It did happen with Vietnam draft evaders. There is an entire generation of former Americans born in Australia and Canada: like Mel Gibson and Stewart Butterfield of Flickr/Slack.
Also with those fleeing communism as refugees or asylum seekers - i'm born to one of those.
I don't doubt that some people will move, but it won't be to the extent of previous migrations. You have a better chance of changing and fixing the USA from the inside.
And somehow I have little sympathy for people who want to leave the US for political reasons but have a problem with countries where wealth is distributed more evenly.
I traveled around Europe and South America for five months recently (digital nomad)... The common question was "...why do you think the US has the technology and opportunities that it does...". My honest answer... Less regulation and an attitude of do what it takes to be successful in the early days. The hustle.
To paraphrase: A society with less internal division seems appealing until you realise is has redistributive taxes that give people the chance to say no to explotative wages.
Canada seems appealing to Americans until they show up and realize other than healthcare, it's pretty much exactly the same place.
Want it to be like redneck country? Go to Alberta. Want to be like the West coast? Vancouver. Like New York, try New York lite, though Canada calls it Toronto.
The following things changed for me going from Canada to the US, there are more American Flags.
Correct me if I'm wrong but lots of people here seem to think that Europe is some kind of progressive booming social-democratic economy/society with free health/education and all. The trend here IMHO is exactly the same trend that put Trump in office - only in Europe (having some more historic experience with such things) we do things a bit more hardcore. Extreme right wings (fascists) are getting more and more power, nationalistic views abound in all states, welfare state is being dismantled, etc. Our 'Mexicans' equivalent are people fleeing from war zones (Syria, Afganistan, etc) that get dumped in buffer Southern states (mainly Italy/Greece). Economy is in shambles for most countries (add in the terrible lock-ins caused by common currency). Each state is mostly looking after its own interests when there are big issues (war) at EU periphery.
...
Do I need to go on?
Fleeing USA for EU is like jumping a flaming ship for a ship that is half-sunk.
I could never move there because the Taco Bell's come with french fries in their combo meals. Nothing I encountered shocked my cultural sensibilities more.
Canada is not about to be run by a bullying sex pest and his running mate, the man who thinks the way to cure gay people is electroshock therapy. There is literally no comparison. Refugees do not care about whether they could earn more.
I would say that the US is pretty much unique in this respect, and you would experience the same tradeoffs in most (all ?) of Western countries outside of it.
Even in countries where gross salaries are comparable, you would pay a ton more taxes.
Personally is a tradeoff I'm willing to make, as I believe what is sacrificed in financial terms is returned as increased social peace, but of course it's a matter of preference.
There are three major things that hinder Canadian startups:
- Small internal market
- Less risk-taking atmosphere and attitude
- Lack of money (see point above)
If you're a startup founder and moving its these three points that'll impact you the most. If you're an employee, the significant salary disparity and the number of employment opportunities will be the biggest factor at play.
That all said, I loved staying in Toronto, and I met and worked with exceptionally strong engineers there; it's my plan to move back. YMMV depending on the company you join, and one (sad) issue is that the job pool is thinner - so jumping from one great startup to another is dramatically harder than SF.
If you're a software engineer working in Canada, you can get a 50% pay bump just by crossing the border.
My recommendation is get a remote job for a smaller company that will pay you in US dollars. After converting to Canadian dollars you'll be about 30% ahead of your Canadian peers but without having to pay Silicon Valley living costs or immigrate into a country crazy enough to elect Trump. If you can live away from Vancouver and Toronto you can really make that stretch.
By the way, if you want to be 300% ahead of your peers, get that remote job, sell your house, close your bank accounts in Canada, and seek non-resident status. Travel the world and bank that extra $70000 a year that would have gone to taxes. Ten years doing that and you can probably retire.
Speaking as someone who did that, and is amazed that it doesn't occur to more people. It's not for everyone, probably most people can't just up and move, their spouse likely can't get a job elsewhere that easily, and there is the question of what to do for the kid's education. If you're single though, you're crazy to stay.
The situation for devs in Canada is so much worse than in an American tech hub. It's actually pretty ridiculous. Everyone I know in Canada is intent on eventually relocating to NYC/SF/Seattle/LA because the jump in QOL is so huge.
That's very true. Not for any political reasons, but I've always wanted to work in the EU (I lived there several times but was working) but everytime I look at salaries in Berlin or the NL or similar, it occurs to me that'd it be a better idea to just work here and save for a few more years, and then go there without the need to get a job.
I'd break even financially and would have more time to learn the language (though I suppose working in a foreign office would be a great way to learn the language, at least once the basics are obtained).
Comparable to where? Not the Bay Area. I interviewed for a remote position with a Canadian company a while back, and they weren't able to pay me anywhere near a market rate Bay Area salary.
My wife is a non-Western immigrant (English is her third language). She says she's never faced any discrimination and many people assumes she was born here (in Toronto). Non-white people are very common and very accepted in Toronto.
I think Kitchener-Waterloo (~300k people) punches above its weight. It definitely feels like a small city, but there are still things to do. Plus Toronto is 1.5 hours away on a Greyhound bus for about $15. ;)
What? There's not much of anything east of Montreal. IBM did (does?) have some offices in the Eastern Townships, but that's not very far from Montreal.
Looking at a map, I see Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Fredricton, then Moncton, and Halifax. Quebec City is probably the largest at about ~500k people, and has some tech industry. Dalhousie University in Halifax has some decent science programs too. After that, the next biggest tech center is probably London.
Canada is great, until you realize you need the US healthcare system for any major surgery (unless you want to wait years) and you truly don't have the freedom of speech.
Canada is great, until you realize you need the US healthcare system for any major surgery (unless you want to wait years) and you truly don't have the freedom of speech.
I can't see my post for some reason, so I'm reposting.
Well, there's putting the brakes on globalization, fewer foreign wars, lower government spending (and probably some progress on reducing the national debt, which has increased more in the last eight years more than all of the 232 years prior to that, combined), among other things.
Relevant to whom? While international friendship is great, we don't have to bomb anyone to be happy ourselves. Arguably, less international aggression would make the world in general happier as well.
It's the same sort of thing as a lot of left wing policitians favour. Incur a lot of debt, and then that's going to cause so much growth that you'll come out smelling of roses.
One of the things that could make this the most important presidential election in history is that there could be an unprecendented number of Supreme Court nominations in the next 4-8 years. That, to me, is what makes this such an important election since the SC has, in my opinion, been stepping beyond its power in the last 10 years so the utility of nomination becomes even more important.
Other than that, you're right, House and Senate control is far more important. But don't underestimate these god-awful presidential signing statements that have become so popular. Appointed cabinet positions can make quite a difference depending on the domain. There are other ways to side-step the separation of powers.
This is breathtakingly naive. The man has coasted to power on a wave of vicious prejudice. Go back and look at the highlights of the GOP convention to get an idea of how he intends to govern.
Not any more. Bush and Obama really pushed the boundaries of what's possible with executive actions. He's also going to have the most invasive surveillance state in human history at his fingertips, and he's surrounded himself with people who love to settle scores.
As a Canadian who moved away, I must warn you that Canada has a form of dutch disease. Resource extraction investments have a much better risk/return ratio, so the pay doesn't even approach US levels. Thus software doesn't approach the levels of investment you have in the USA. And you thought SF was bad, wait until you see what has gone wrong with the housing markets in Toronto and Vancouver.
I liked Canada and it's sad that I have to live away from my family, but I would be a fool to stay otherwise.
The "dutch disease" went away with falling oil prices. I agree that the housing markets in Vancouver and Toronto are nuts, but until today it looked like they were cooling down.
Unfortunately, we might see another spike in foreign investment in Canadian housing thanks to this election...
When I was interviewing in vancouver and seattle, the seattle offer was about double. Housing and everything else cost less and the income tax rate was lower. Back then the currencies were even. Now they are not, so its an even better idea to work in the USA. You pay off student loans and save money that much faster.
Soon after I moved to the bay area because the companies there were more interesting, but the pay was probably about even compared to seattle.
Good riddance.
Canada is great, until you realize you need the US healthcare system for any major surgery (unless you want to wait years) and you truly don't have the freedom of speech.
You can get a pretty nice 1 BR apartment in Montreal for ~$600 US/mo. Incredible bars, beautiful people, great schools, bike paths, and lots of outdoor rinks to play hockey in the winter :-)
Unlike SF, we have great public transit! Most startups are a 5 minute walk from a subway stop, and it's cleaner/less crowded. Few people own cars here. (But granted, the snow is no joke!)
It's really not that bad. It's mainly there to make sure companies don't alienate Quebec's native french speaker. You can do fine in the Qc tech industry even if you barely understand french (Source: personal experience)
Also : immigrating to Canada is time-consuming and exhausting (typically 1 year and lots of paper work) but going to Canada with a work visa is quick and painless. Most of the time, startups are taking care of the paperwork and can even help of the relocation. And if you really like the place, after a few months, you can then apply for immigration.
I don't even know how to respond to this. People die trying to make it into the U.S. I'm not a flag-waving jingoist, but the the United States is a f'ing great place to live.
Why will it be much different next year? I don't see much changing in the short term besides a new set of characters in the news. Longer term, we'll see.
That depends on what you compare it to. Plenty of first world countries are ahead of the US in many important aspects. But if you're setting the bar on the level of Russia or some third world countries, then yeah, it's pretty great.
The US is ahead of plenty of first world countries in many important aspects.
- Unemployment rate and job openings
- Economic growth
- Disposable income
- Household income
- Low middle class tax rates
- GDP per capita
- Economic productivity
- Wealth creation opportunities
- Access to capital and investment
- Diversity (most competing first world nations are very homogeneous)
- Scale and variety of industry, the US is the #2 manufacturing nation for example
- Freedom of speech and ease of movement
- Tech infrastructure
- Best universities on earth
- By far the highest research & scientific output of any nation
- Leadership positions in: pharma, biotech, genetech, aerospace, software, Internet tech broadly, cloud, ecommerce, mobile, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, space / space tech, defense / military, agriculture, electric vehicles, nuclear and other energy fields, one of the leaders in solar, and numerous other fields
- America's median standard of living is still among the top dozen nations on earth
Sure, it is a rich and developed country after all. It's not horrible. It's just not really special if you're looking out for your own quality of life as opposed to how prominent the country is.
This is doubly so if you don't associate with the stereotypical American lifestyle of working 50 hours a week, 10 days vacation per year, and sending out work emails while holding your newborn baby.
Listing specific things is pointless – all these ratings are online anyway, but just to name a few:
- fucked up health care system
- gun violence rate higher than in most third world countries
- homicide rate worse than any other developed country, and worse than countries like Niger, Laos, India, or Iran
- those best universities will put you in a $200K+ debt hole that you'll spend a lifetime getting out of, and the mediocre universities are not cheap either (compared to almost free education in many developed countries)
Those same people that would die trying to make it into the US are now going to be turned away if they do make it. The America that prides itself being a destination of salvation for immigrants is not the America that Trump wants to create.
If any of you have seen an Ottawa winter, you'll understand that the one guy on the night-shift there is too busy trying to figure out how fast he can get to Australia.
My girlfriend and I (Both software devs) would gladly move to Canada with the help of a company employing us. Almost immediately. We have little to no attachment to our current city of Portland.
Re-reading it, it looks like it's "Individuals may be eligible for one of the TN visa categories that only require a 2 year post-secondary diploma and 3 years of experience".
There's lots of minefields. I've never done it, just familiar with it.
You may want to come check out Toronto before moving here. A great event to see what the City's tech scene is like is HackerNest. It's once a month. You could probably also line up some interviews for your trip.
I stick to George Carlin's advice: I'm in the front seat and I want the best entertainment. And Trump will deliver the best entertainment of all candidates! I'm staying to watch this circus, pass the pop corn!
I don't really get the mindset of "if Trump wins I'm moving to X country." The citizens in all of those countries are much more scared of a Trump presidency than Americans seem to be. It stands to reason that the best place to weather a Trump administration is from within the U.S.
I mean, when your guy is threatening to disband NATO, tear up NAFTA (and rejects free trade as a whole), reinstate torture as official policy, etc...would you rather live in the U.S. or in one of its allied countries?
As someone from a country which strongly depends on NATO (Lithuania, former Soviet state, shared border with heavily militarized Russian territory Kaliningrad), you are spot on.
Do you think Twitter/FB commenters are dead serious about moving? To me it is at same level as today's lunch photos: just grab attention and likes by whatever means.
It seems like it would be more useful for Silicon Valley to just put their money where their mouth is and declare war. Fund education like crazy, pour a ton of money into environmental causes and just go nuts. Create a useful America.
Despite the caring face that most startups put up they all have to make money to survive. Only when they grow really big can they even think of pursuing social goals and even then they will have opposition from the shareholders.
The same website handles actual processing of citizenship and permanent residency applications, such as form submissions, qualification questions, and so on. It runs a very light client so all of the validation is server-side. Far cry from "mostly static".
556 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 353 ms ] threadAre you seriously comparing SF living to Waterloo living? There's a reason it's 1/4 the price. It's a running joke between every single undergraduate student with significant experience in SF that we want to get out of Waterloo.
LRT opening up? That's a joke. How exactly is the LRT going to help the startup scene?
I like it here, and I'm happy with what I make, but when you factor in the exchange rate, a typical US developer would take a huge salary haircut working here; probably 40-50%.
You're spot on w.r.t. most living expenses, too. I've got a big apartment in a part of Toronto that I really like for $1200 a month. Buying a house in this city is another story, though. On my grandfather's street, smallish 3 bedroom detached homes are selling for $1.5 million+.
[1] http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/28/canada-lift-visa-req...
You show up at the border with your passport, the fee, and few documents from your employer. They do some stuff on the computer and then awkwardly disappear for a few minutes. You pay the cashier and the guard reappears with your completed work permit. Done.
As far as I know, there's also not much paperwork for returning to the US, though you're supposed to inventory all of the stuff you bring back with you.
ps: parts of my family moved out of Hong Kong when it became Chinese again. But that was quite a different situation.
Obviously I'm in a bit of a bubble (having done this myself) but a lot of my college friends left the country too.
I think you're talking about business schools. Almost all reputable engineering schools are virtually free, as well as all universities.
"Virtually free" can mean somewhere around 2000 Euros a year. A lot of people get aid (I didn't have to pay for my last year thanks to this). Plus most engineering schools don't really use textbooks, so you don't have much in extra expenses apart from a laptop.
Yes, taxes pay for this, but that was my out-of-pocket for schooling.
You do have to pay for some business schools, but what people say on that: you pay for your diploma.
I have friends who went to some private schools for computer science and it seems like it's a good path for some of them (around 8k euro/year)
Besides, I've moved to Germany, from a more distant culture than French
Besides, most of the differences are non issues
But yes, I'm good at adapting
We'll buy whatever layout new staff want, but we keep spares of these two around.
(British gives the European physical layout with the additional key and double height enter key.)
Having lived in France I'd say switching from the French keyboard to most other western layouts is especially brutal (or making the switch in the other direction). Took me a good while to readjust to the numbers being on shift and the special characters being the default. Very brutal for passwords :D
But I just set it to US-Intl (wherever the place) and be done with it. I don't look at what's drawn on the keyboard
You have more english speakers in Germany, and the lifestyle is similar, but the lifestyle is similar in all of Europe and even in Europe and USA. But that does not make the culture the same.
Would love to know more. I like to think I know a little about French culture (or could make a guess at it) but I've never been to Germany.
Germans have that klischee about being punctual and organized, no? Well, it is true, and it is very different in France. Meetings don't start on time, even in the workplace. But also when you meet up with friends, you don't have to be there on time, and it is seldom expected. It is not as crazy as in Africa or latin america, but if you meet in a bar at 7pm people will arrive 7:15 or 7:30. That was difficult in the beginning. Of course, also happens in Germany, but to a lesser extent.
This translates to other things: I was the first PhD student of my french professor who actually finished his thesis before the deadline. We made a plan, I sticked to it. She fully expected we would run late and was quite surprised. Also, in the international project I was working on, our french colleagues had the tendency to not fully respect the deadlines. That was actually a positive thing, because the deadlines were crazy and instead work was always done when needed, not when the plan saw it fit, leading to a better work distribution.
Food. The coffee is different in France. Meals take longer, also the lunch break does. Entrée, main course, dessert – way more common to have it all. There is a whole restaurant culture in France that is way different than in Germany, with people of the middle class eating in restaurants every week at least once, and with many many more restaurant than in an equally sized german town.
There is also a difference in how people dress. Depends on the place and setting of course, and you can't easily compare Berlin and Paris anyway. But still, it is noticeable also in other cities. There is another standard.
The thing with friends is hard to describe and it also changes anyway depending on age and setting, no matter where you are probably. And I won't go into the topic of women. Something else then: You have in France these really friendly french men who really talk a lot. Very easy to talk to, as they will just start the conversation and help you along, which is quite nice when you meet new colleagues. But in Germany that would mean that someone is really interested in becoming a friend. Here it is just the default for some, it means nothing special.
'I didn't "flee" America. What I fled are tribalistic homo-apes who have reverted back to simply responding to their instincts. Just a bunch of reactionary emotions without rational thought.'
http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/the-important-thing
What those two have in common is they fit the definition of the word 'demagogue' 100%, point by point. Along with many, many others (numerous political figures in Europe in the '30s, Huey Long, senator McCarthy, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
Hitler, however, was far more effective than everyone on that list.
Well, at least so far. But even so, Hitler's charisma and ability to emotionally be a puppet master to enormous masses while spewing bullshit appears to be unparalleled in history.
Based on what we've seen so far, the Berlusconi comparison seems best. Knock on wood.
This seems a bit broad.
Not sure about wages. I feel I'm paid a fair salary.
Hey, be fair. You have to drive 1.5 hours to get to the best ski resort in the world.
As the saying goes - "It rains only once, but for seven months (October through April)."
> oppressive mountains
Actually, said mountains limit traveling northbound (there's a single road that goes to Whistler), there's an ocean to the west, farmlands to the east and the US border with few hour wait crossing times to the south. So you are basically stuck in the city. It is a big city and lots to do, granted, but after a while it gets stale.
> incredible skiing, biking, hiking
... which don't move a needle unless you are a hardcore outdoorsman.
Not to forget the real estate chokeful of Chinese money and priced out of reach. School system that is focused on producing tolerant citizens rather than someone how knows what an integral is, etc.
On the plus side - a mild climate, very good restaurant scene, nice people and nearly free medicine (which is too not without its headaches).
To each his own, basically.
Also, the Chinese real estate situation is the same as here in SV.
It's tough to live in this town on the median local income. Get a very good job before you move here. There are much more affordable Canadian cities with the same social deal and without the Vancouver housing crisis. But if you can make it work, this is a nice place.
It's a suburban area though, which is great if you're into that. If you want an urban car-free experience there's only a very tiny part of downtown, yaletown and maybe olympic village that will accomodate that.
Been there myself. Life ain't easy out there.
Edit - A little bit of context here: I am speaking as someone who was born and raised in a developing country rife with racial and political problems. My point is, a lot of people who are yelling about immigrating due to the election result are overly naive with their outlook. It takes an incredible amount of effort to adjust to a new environment, not to speak of giving up the connections and comfort they have in the US. It's not as easy as just "moving to another country".
On the other hand, life as a lower class non-native person in Canada is far better then that of a lower class non-native person in the US.
Canada doesn't accept immigrants with expensive pre-existing conditions though. Much like insurance companies pre-ACA.
Obviously it's more said than done, but it happens and I admire those who follow through.
Since then, two friends have moved from London to Berlin, two others are planning to move to Frankfurt, two others have job offers in Stockholm or Malmø. (This is three couples.) Another friend has applied for a position in Lund.
Only 3/7 of these people are British, so the other 4 have already made a similar move.
If you hold him to his campaign promises, at least 11 million Americans will leave.
I myself moved from Switzerland to Colombia. Among other reasons because I wanted a break from the Swiss cultural and political climate.
But for me, emigrating isn't a definite thing. At least as long as I don't have children. Maybe I'll stay, maybe go back, maybe move somewhere else after a while.
Also I like being culture shocked – it tends to widen my horizon :)
Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada and I mostly don't miss living in Bay Area, but most of my friends lament the fact that their salary and career opportunities are a joke compared to what they could have in the U.S. (even adjusting for cost of living).
Besides, money isn't everything. There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites, and insane levels of violence too. Not to mention the impact this will have on the SCOTUS, and how incredibly screwed up healthcare is.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.
This is a huge deal.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC - aka "Companies are people and money is free speech"
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
Justice Robert's had a conservative record; Then he saved Obama Care.
At least up to 1989, there was no real predictability of Supreme Court Justices. I got the question wrong on a test. I'm lying--I got it right. I was trying to prove a point, by being theatrical.
I had a Professor drilled this paradoxical observation into our heads. He pointed to studies, but I'm too tired to look them up. It was in a national textbook.
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
I mean, unless you're incredibly wealthy, and don't care about anyone else at all.
Live somewhere like CA? Hard to see the state government or Supreme Court rolling things back too terribly. Health insurance if you don't have a good job would be a big question mark, would be nice to see the state pick that up.
Live in a state where the legislature is inclined to pass laws against your sexuality, religion, etc? That's a much more vulnerable position.
IMO a much larger problem than Trump is the structural favoritism in the American political system towards less-populated areas. This has a lot to do with how Obama's last term was largely sabotaged as well, after all.
Thomas Jefferson
Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind.
Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system?
Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done.
(And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
So much for any of their projections. The actual popular vote difference is 202,340 -- less than 0.17% of votes cast.
By what specific mechanism could a Trump presidency cause them to lose access to birth control or abortion?
The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.
Did you forget that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate until 2011? In fact, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until February of 2010.
Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
See Currier:
- http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/currier-v-jackson...
- https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/01/mississippi-abortion-cli...
Also see Whole Woman's Health:
- http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-heal...
- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abo...
These things don't matter until they really, really, really do. Having seen the grass on both sides of the fence, I can attest that it really can be meaningfully greener.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
I wonder how is that possible? Insurance plans these days have to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition, even the cheapest plans cover everything after a deductible, unless I am missing something
I don't think the Republicans have enough people in the Senate to block filibusters. So I assume the Democrats will use the filibuster to block repeals of the healthcare law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/the-future-of-obama...
Boom. Now Obamacare can be repealed with simple majority. I bet you dollars to donuts that insurance prices, however, will not go back down to pre-Obamacare prices. Because profits.
Sounds simplistic but if you look at the system as a whole, ask who its benefitting the most, doesnt seem to be the electorate.
We have the same problem in the UK, it got us Brexit and you folks Trump.
As Michael Moore said when he predicted a trump win, "It's the biggest fuck you they can send".
Average rent ranges from $500-$3600/mth though for illustrative purposes (taking into account people in expensive places share) let's use $1K/mth for our hypothetical person. [3]
That leaves you with $16K/yr (male) and $7K/yr (female) for food, transportation and incidental expenses.
Obamacare backed health plans have a maximum out-of-pocket of $7K/yr for individuals.
Yeah, I'd say the median American is pretty much SOL if they get sick even if they have insurance. And those figures don't take into account the price of the insurance itself if your employer elects not to provide it to you.
In the UK your NHS annual out-of-pocket maximum is $0.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
[2] https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator
[3] http://mentalfloss.com/article/81296/average-cost-one-bedroo...
[4] https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
The tax calculator you reference includes estimates of sales, property, and fuel taxes (which make up much of the tax total at the incomes here), which are actually rolled into rent, transportation, and general purchases, so you are double counting some expenses.
At least the standard employment sponsored plans.
I thought my first (awful) plan had a benefit limit, as in you're getting a maximum of $1.25M from us, regardless of what happens.
My family has easily hit the pre-Obamacare lifetime coverage limits and fairly frequently would've hit the annual ones. Our $4k out-of-pocket cap saves us from 10-50k in coinsurance/copays depending on the year. As a result, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they could.
Soon, it looks like they'll be able to.
Based on what? You are just speculating now
That's public money going to the private sector for no real benefit.
Like Obamas presidency. For every good he's done or tried to do, all the shit in the world that affects the US (and even things that are not real apparently) gets pinned on him, regardless of cause.
And sure, Obamacare probably has a lot of faults, but is that because of its concept, because of congressional gridlock, or compromises?
I won't argue either way, but it's always sad when something gets dismantled or at least scolded for reasons outside of its grasp.
I don't know enough about NHS to say, but spending £600M/year on management consultants doesn't sound like a healthcare problem.
I'm not religious, but it's the same with Islam being lumped together with extremists, Christianity being lumped in with crusades and westboro baptists and other lunatics, and both republicans and liberals being categorized by a few vocal idiots.
Sometimes you have to try to look objectively at something and the faults alongside it, and try to determine if they are one and the same. Sometimes it's worth fighting to improve something instead of just burning it to the ground, because there's a good chance the new foundation being built is worse than what you destroyed.
We just let them do it because we (collective we) have grown so used to having it we can't remember what it was like before, people dying from treatable conditions because they couldn't afford it, average life expectancy been a whole decade lower (or more) etc.
We (again collective) won't realise what we had until it's gone.
And with the ability to set a Justice and a party dominated House and Senate, it does not look very good for "checks and balances" over the next 4 years.
And that of course assumes you're not subject to deportation for whatever reason. If Trump keeps any of his campaign promises we will be seeing many people forced out of the country. No idea what the extent of that will be, and at least some people here are first generation and claim to be anchors.
That said, god I love Denmark.
Also northern lights should be spectacular.
(Source: own experience)
This is what I like over here:
- Big city but you can walk almost everywhere - Weather is great - Airport is 20min subway from city centre - People are friendly, most speak some sort of english - Tech scene is getting better every year - No gentrification yet
There are advantages on being on central or northern europe instead, but if I was in my 20s I would definitely come to Lisbon.
However, if you decide to live outside of Lisbon where rents are very high, that amount of money is enough for you to live well and even save some money if you're somewhat frugal. Also, the weather is usually quite nice here, and if you're into that kind of things, there's a booming tech scene is Lisbon (web summit is here for this week).
Unfortunately, most of the jobs people take here are on outsourcing companies, but there is an increasing number of jobs available on local startups. If you're planning to move here, check jobs in http://landing.jobs/ (mostly startups).
US has huge internal markets - I would see this as the main benefit. Otherwise than that, if you make an actual good product, know marketing and are not terribly dependent on US VC money (which is hardly the only source of capital) I fail to to see the problem.
Sure, there are laws for holidays and such but that does not limit business, IMO, only the amount of arbitrary power employers have over their employees. It does not limit global market opportunities in any way.
It would be harder to launch a service like Uber though that tries to take on entrenched incumbent local players. Target global b2b or consumer markets and the problem goes away.
All of this is my personal understanding, and I might be wrong. If so, then please educate me with countering facts.
Most of the big business in Europe is either 1. American 2. state owned or 3. companies founded before before WW1. It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. You would get kocked down by taxes and regulations before you know it.
I'm pretty sure the market is filled with unregulated niches that don't require you to shift the balance of the universe to be successful.
Yes, US seems to be winning in terms of environment which facilitates the rapid growth of paradigm shifting companies. I did not claim otherwise - I merely countered the proposal that it would be counterproductive to try to do business in Europe altogether. Not as inducive to growth is a different thing from disabling profitable companies altogether.
I'm hard pressed to quantify the quality of public healthcare. Patient outcomes are a different thing than what the service feels like. I agree, it's sometimes painstakingly hard to find good healthcare but in my experience that applies to both public and private as equally - the more rare the condition, the harder it is to find a helpful diagnosis and a plan to proceed.
The professional capability of the tending doctor is the most critical factor. I've met outstanding professionals in the public space and private clinic doctors who have been sloppy and unattentive - and vise versa.
Of course, if budgets strain, the quality of care decreases.
I'm in Norway. There is public health care. Sometimes there is a wait, sometimes not. You have the option to pay for private care, if you want. But I'm never going to have to worry about not being able to afford care. This alone makes a huge lifestyle change. Not just for me: But for children and lots of other folks as well.
In addition, some caveats of care are much better here. You can choose the cheaper but better outcomed care option. For example, they send a nurse out to someone's house up to 6 times a day before someone is eligible for a nursing home. Even if you live in a secluded spot on a mountain or island. Why? It is cheaper and folks tend to live longer this way.
https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/home-health-services.html
You're not eligible for the home health benefit if you need more than part-time or "intermittent" skilled nursing care.
Now, the mouse over says that 'part time or intermittent' means less than 7 days each week or less than 8 hours each day over a period of 21 days or less - unless you have special circumstances. In other words, sure, as long as it is temporary.In addition, you have to be homebound, only leaving for short, infrequent things for medical care, religious services, and the like.
I'm not even sure most folks know that stuff exists judging by how many people take care of their elderly parents. Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Here it isn't a short term situation. You get a nurse for up to 6 visits a day, even if you need all 6 visits every day for 10 years. In fact, you aren't eligible for a nursing home unless your needs exceed this. It isn't so much if you are homebound, but that you need the medical care (though you might be mostly homebound with that).
Reimbursement for a stay in a nursing home would also be subject to a doctor deeming it necessary (and also whatever rules Medicare has about it), home care is just a lower level of care in that sense.
I wasn't really trying to compare the programs, I just saw the possibility in your comment that were not very aware of it in the US.
Reimbursement for the nursing homes... admittedly, most of what I know about payment for american nursing homes is probably rumor, "friend of a friend lost had to sell the house for the nursing home payment" sort of thing. Didn't pay much attention, then was taught the cost in class here in Norway.
It is hard to take somebody serious who lumps together all countries from Europe. May I ask in which one you live?
If you just take the above elements of your reasoning, you've just described White flight.
Gun violence in the US is a major problem and our gun ownership and sales policies are at the heart of it. I've considered moving my family away from it long before this horrifying outcome.
The murder rate for whites in the US (i.e. the rate at which whites are murdered) is 2.5 per 100,000 much lower than the overall murder rate of 5.2 per 100,000. This is still higher than most of the West, e.g. 70% higher than Canada. But not the "extreme levels" you referred to earlier.
And you didn't mention guns before, I'm assuming you don't really only care about violence that comes out of the barrel of a gun, and you're just adding this now to avoid discussing the link between race and crime.
I don't view a ton of difference between extremist terrorist conscription and, say, gang violence.
I think many of the same triggers are exploited. And you see those same triggers at play in traditionally white "militia" folks as well.
If you move, please reach out. We'll be glad to welcome you!
If that's OK with you, then go for it.
In NYC I can do a normal sit down lunch at $40 multiple times a week, without really batting an eye - whereas that would be painful in Denmark - on the plus side you usually have catered lunch which quality, choice and taste wise is not nearly as good, but significantly cheaper and with it being better for team work within the company.
For health care you should expect longer lines and significant delays in case you have a non-urgent issue; whereas that in NYC is something you can handle easily by setting up an appointment on Zocdoc so that you can see a specialist the next day - with it being covered by your health insurance.
On a NYC tech salary I tend to buy gadgets / items as often as I want, if the cost is below maybe $200, in Denmark that threshold is more like $60.
Vacation policies are generally substantially better in Denmark; and workload also being significantly lower.
Pros and cons
What is it you feel you need to wait for?
Also, in regards to salary: Yes, it's lower overall. But it's still high, especially in the tech sector. I get paid roughly the same as my US counterparts (we have offices in Copenhagen and New York).
That lasted 6 months, and she now has a big group of friends consisting of expats/danes.
Job opportunities are very good, especially if you work within healthcare, engineering or similar fields. There's a shortage in the workforce for highly qualified workers.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/05391733140/denma...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/europe/denmark-vote-jewelry-bi...
Suffice to say not exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom for all. But it might work for white techno elites for whom being not in US/UK and writing web apps is all they want.
It's also the same if you get government benefits. If your wealth exceeds 10.000 DKK, you will have to use your own money to get by, until you run out.
I'm a Danish citizen, with the fiancé being a US citizen - and my understanding is that it wouldn't be easy for us to live in Denmark due to us having an unreasonable burden in demonstrating attachment to Denmark vs the US (https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/07/nye-regler-famili...) --- and with the president-elect having talked about pausing legal immigration for 1-2 years it makes for pretty scary times as my employer currently is applying for PERM status for me (meaning things could be paused randomly by the president - and with no where for us to go but maybe Canada/other European countries)
In regards to your visa in the US, I think you should just wait it out. I doubt it'll get paused overnight, since the business impacts would be too great.
Why throw in 'whites' like it's some derogatory adjective? Are bitter uneducated blacks or hispanics preferable? Besides that, people without a college degree are not necessarily stupid or not allowed to have a voice.
That said, any in that line up will be a bit of a culture shock coming from the US.
Source: I'm Dutch and moved to Sweden
Source: Scottish, moved to Finland.
(Biggest pain-points for me: the Finnish language, and the brutal winters.)
I think when I did the math, the taxes weren't really all that much higher than the taxes + health insurance costs in the states. It feels more like I'm paying a tax instead of outright fees for some things. Some I don't notice as much - such as the 25% VAT, mostly because it is included in the listed price.
Cost of living is high here, but Sweden is supposedly cheaper. Enough that there is a bus that goes over the border for Norwegians to shop.
https://www.jobbsafari.se/jobb/it/systemutveckling
Most of the ads are in swedish, but google translate does a decent job of translating.
Don't be afraid to apply in english, majority of IT companies does not mind hiring english-only speakers.
Not sure about the rules on getting a work-visa in Sweden.
This is exactly the sentiment that has brought us to this point. Either you are tolerant, inclusive or you are not. Try respecting the thoughts and options of others instead of leveling insults. Equality demands that people that differ from you still get a voice.
This does not apply only to high-income Americans. In fact, the downsides of a reduced salary are much worse for people with average and low incomes.
It's become pretty obvious since the 2008 recession that people of low incomes, or even average incomes, have few means to control the circumstances of their lives. They are at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control. Another recession would victimize them again, and they would be powerless to improve their circumstances.
Americans moving to Canada, whether or not they are high-paid tech workers, will almost certainly take a lower salary in Canada than the one they have in the US, for doing the same job. The safety net in Canada isn't that much better than the one in the US, aside from the obvious exception of free health care. So, a lower salary would be a pretty big sacrifice to make, because it would worsen the problems I mentioned above.
Also with those fleeing communism as refugees or asylum seekers - i'm born to one of those.
I don't doubt that some people will move, but it won't be to the extent of previous migrations. You have a better chance of changing and fixing the USA from the inside.
Want it to be like redneck country? Go to Alberta. Want to be like the West coast? Vancouver. Like New York, try New York lite, though Canada calls it Toronto.
The following things changed for me going from Canada to the US, there are more American Flags.
My 2 cents.
Even in countries where gross salaries are comparable, you would pay a ton more taxes.
Personally is a tradeoff I'm willing to make, as I believe what is sacrificed in financial terms is returned as increased social peace, but of course it's a matter of preference.
- Small internal market
- Less risk-taking atmosphere and attitude
- Lack of money (see point above)
If you're a startup founder and moving its these three points that'll impact you the most. If you're an employee, the significant salary disparity and the number of employment opportunities will be the biggest factor at play.
That all said, I loved staying in Toronto, and I met and worked with exceptionally strong engineers there; it's my plan to move back. YMMV depending on the company you join, and one (sad) issue is that the job pool is thinner - so jumping from one great startup to another is dramatically harder than SF.
My recommendation is get a remote job for a smaller company that will pay you in US dollars. After converting to Canadian dollars you'll be about 30% ahead of your Canadian peers but without having to pay Silicon Valley living costs or immigrate into a country crazy enough to elect Trump. If you can live away from Vancouver and Toronto you can really make that stretch.
Not for long -- America just out brexited the U.K.
Speaking as someone who did that, and is amazed that it doesn't occur to more people. It's not for everyone, probably most people can't just up and move, their spouse likely can't get a job elsewhere that easily, and there is the question of what to do for the kid's education. If you're single though, you're crazy to stay.
I'd break even financially and would have more time to learn the language (though I suppose working in a foreign office would be a great way to learn the language, at least once the basics are obtained).
Come over :)
So a 15-20% salary reduction probably puts you ahead.
[edit] just Raleigh mind you, The Triangle is much bigger than that.
Looking at a map, I see Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Fredricton, then Moncton, and Halifax. Quebec City is probably the largest at about ~500k people, and has some tech industry. Dalhousie University in Halifax has some decent science programs too. After that, the next biggest tech center is probably London.
Canada is great, until you realize you need the US healthcare system for any major surgery (unless you want to wait years) and you truly don't have the freedom of speech.
Heh. The funny thing is I always win.
Canada is great, until you realize you need the US healthcare system for any major surgery (unless you want to wait years) and you truly don't have the freedom of speech.
I can't see my post for some reason, so I'm reposting.
Granted, that only counts for fear of a semi-tyrannical president, not necessarily for economic concerns.
So it'll be a more unified government than you've seen in a long time, which makes Trump able to get a lot of his platform through.
It's a great time to live in America.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...
The big ones are term limits for Congress and lower taxes.
On the dooms day clock of climate change, the time is past midnight. This is not good.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/budgetary-impac...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trai...
It's the same sort of thing as a lot of left wing policitians favour. Incur a lot of debt, and then that's going to cause so much growth that you'll come out smelling of roses.
Other than that, you're right, House and Senate control is far more important. But don't underestimate these god-awful presidential signing statements that have become so popular. Appointed cabinet positions can make quite a difference depending on the domain. There are other ways to side-step the separation of powers.
I liked Canada and it's sad that I have to live away from my family, but I would be a fool to stay otherwise.
Unfortunately, we might see another spike in foreign investment in Canadian housing thanks to this election...
Houses are expensive here but still cheaper than London or SF.
Canada isn't all doom and gloom.
Soon after I moved to the bay area because the companies there were more interesting, but the pay was probably about even compared to seattle.
That is why it would of been foolish to stay.
-Transit (transitapp.com)
-Unsplash (unsplash.com)
-Hopper (hopper.com)
-Breather (breather.com)
-Sonder (sonder.com)
-Busbud (busbud.com)
-AmpMe (ampme.com)
-Fuzzy AI (fuzzy.ai)
-Frank & Oak (frankandoak.com)
You can get a pretty nice 1 BR apartment in Montreal for ~$600 US/mo. Incredible bars, beautiful people, great schools, bike paths, and lots of outdoor rinks to play hockey in the winter :-)
FYI: Montreal startups operate in English!
(No personal experience, but this is what my French-speaking relatives in Quebec say, and the occasional news seem to match it.)
The German tax ROI seems much better to me, but I miss my $575 Montreal rent.
Will Trump keep it that way?
My original plan was to move and telecommute, but that's kind of fucked because the dollar is crashing.
- Unemployment rate and job openings
- Economic growth
- Disposable income
- Household income
- Low middle class tax rates
- GDP per capita
- Economic productivity
- Wealth creation opportunities
- Access to capital and investment
- Diversity (most competing first world nations are very homogeneous)
- Scale and variety of industry, the US is the #2 manufacturing nation for example
- Freedom of speech and ease of movement
- Tech infrastructure
- Best universities on earth
- By far the highest research & scientific output of any nation
- Leadership positions in: pharma, biotech, genetech, aerospace, software, Internet tech broadly, cloud, ecommerce, mobile, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, space / space tech, defense / military, agriculture, electric vehicles, nuclear and other energy fields, one of the leaders in solar, and numerous other fields
- America's median standard of living is still among the top dozen nations on earth
This is doubly so if you don't associate with the stereotypical American lifestyle of working 50 hours a week, 10 days vacation per year, and sending out work emails while holding your newborn baby.
Listing specific things is pointless – all these ratings are online anyway, but just to name a few:
- fucked up health care system
- gun violence rate higher than in most third world countries
- homicide rate worse than any other developed country, and worse than countries like Niger, Laos, India, or Iran
- those best universities will put you in a $200K+ debt hole that you'll spend a lifetime getting out of, and the mediocre universities are not cheap either (compared to almost free education in many developed countries)
There's lots of minefields. I've never done it, just familiar with it.
Trump is well-known for being extremely against NAFTA.
1. https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/457-
As long as you don’t come by boat you should be fine.
Damn. Whoever thought being obsessed with the election coverage would be useful.
And vacations to Mexico just got 10% cheaper.
I mean, when your guy is threatening to disband NATO, tear up NAFTA (and rejects free trade as a whole), reinstate torture as official policy, etc...would you rather live in the U.S. or in one of its allied countries?
I guess it depends on whether you're a minority or not, doesn't it?