The future of Europe

[Michael in ABQ]

I hear very good things about the multi-payer systems in Germany and France. If anyone from Germany or France would like to comment I would be very grateful. Even my Canadian friends shut up about their healthcare when they hear how much mine costs (premiums + family out of pocket max was $38K USD last year). Also, as far as waiting and being denied care, I payed dearly for that treatment from my HMO, and because of the US system they were the only (realistic) option that I had.

French guy here. We almost pay nothing regarding health.
I paid 9300$ over 2 years to get my teeth fixed and it would have been free if I had done it before I was 18. Kids get their teeth fixed for free. As reeshau mentioned we also have private healthcare but it's not that expensive and your company pays part of yours if you're an employee. I pay around 50$ a month for private healthcare.
You paid more for your health this year than I'll ever spend in my life I guess.

I think the general consensus is that if you're upper-middle-class or higher, the U.S. is much better for you, but if you're middle-class or lower, the EU is better. Salaries on the East and West coasts are so high relative to other countries, and taxes so relatively low, that you can sock away a ton of investments at a fairly quick pace -- this would definitely not be possible in most EU countries. Americans really underestimate both average salaries and the standard of living in Europe.  I lived in Paris for a year during college and my host family had a dryer but never used it because electricity was so expensive. I'll admit, I didn't imagine that these relatively wealthy retirees I was staying with would be line-drying their clothes indoors in one of the chicest parts of Paris, but that kind of thing was pretty standard.

It depends on the country. French people pay quite a lot of taxes and yes that makes FI harder - but that also makes your retirement kinda easier to live also. What I mean is, in the US the idea is that you can only count on yourself and must save accordingly.
In France, if you work until 60-65 then you get a monthly check. So you don't have to save as much as an american either.
Switzerland, UK or Germany pay better than France and also ask for less taxes as far as I know (I'm sure about salaries, not sure about taxes).

Another thing you guys forgot is that, in France, we get 5 paid weeks of vacation every year. Americans really are lagging behind regarding traveling and going on holidays.

I can't relate to reeshau's poor experience with Amazon: we have same day delivery with Amazon Prime in big cities and in general 2 to 4 days delivery without Prime and in small towns.

I just have to pick up on this. Yes, "a car," not cars, plural.  That's the point.

Yup, France has ~half as many vehicles per capita as the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita.

reeshau does it mean americans own more than one car per person?
Because in France when I say almost everyone has a car I mean almost everyone. A couple will own 2 cars. If they have kids, the kids generally will have a car once they're 18 also. etc...
I might misinterpret but to me it means you guys simply buy too much cars, it's not like french people could not afford cars lol.

Why less vehicles per Capita? Something very different between the States and Europe is that our cities were made for humans while yours seem to be made for cars.
In Paris (french capital) you either walk or take the very performant public transports to everywhere - having a car if you live there is a waste of money and time.
I live in Lyon, #3 biggest city in France and I walk everywhere, we have public bikes that we pay nothing for (I pay 40$ a year to ride bikes in the city, I can take one anywhere, deposit anywhere... I don't have to maintain it, it's incredible)... I'll sometimes take the subway and my ride will be < 20 minutes every time.

So what I wanted to say is that we have far much cars than we need in France.

I think the EU's biggest problem is that with declining birthrates and stagnating economies, at some point they're not going to be able to pay for their generous social welfare schemes. French people protested for weeks when they proposed raising the official retirement age above 60. 60! As someone else noted, Germany and the other wealthier countries will reach a point where they are going to take a hard look at what they're subsidizing via membership in the EU, and they may wonder if it's still worth it.

Yes. The solution our governments took was massive immigration and it's not working - it just makes more people survive on welfare and insecurity rise as, at least in France, we now have more and more people simply hating France and white people.
But the same seems to be happening in the US. Do you guys think the US will do better? Why?

US culture is built around an idea, not a language and/or ethnic group. Yes English is the dominant language and most people are white, but neither are requirements to be considered American. As a native of France, in your opinion will an immigrant ever be considered French? Or will they always be considered an immigrant, even if they've learned French and lived there for decades? What about their children if they marry within that same immigrant group?

Cultural assimilation has been going on in the US since the country was created. The fist generation that immigrates may or may not learn the language and depending on the area and the country they're coming from may be able to get by in an ethnic enclave without it for decades (Chinese, Polish, Italians, Germans, etc.). The second generation learn English growing up, in school if nothing else, but they will probably speak their parents native language at home. By the third generation odds are the kids will be English only speakers, maybe picking up their grandparents native language (if they're still alive) but probably speaking English at home. By the fourth generation they will probably have married outside their specific country of origin and be some sort of mix. You're not likely to find many people who's ancestors immigrated 100 years ago that are still 100% Irish, German, Chinese, etc.

Also, the kind of immigrants the US attracts are generally those that are willing to work hard to improve their situation. They are more likely to assimilate into American culture as it represents a chance for them to improve the situation for themselves and their children. My boss's boss (in charge of several thousand people) immigrated from Vietnam as a child and constantly talks about all the opportunities he's had growing up as an American versus in a communist country.

[Catica]

US culture is built around an idea, not a language and/or ethnic group.

And what is that idea??? You don’t say.
Everything that the USA stands for historically stems out of British colonial era, all the laws, all the cultural, historical, and religious perceptions are rudimentary of the British culture. The culture that has intrinsically been responsible for slavery and white supremacy.  Even after the abolition of slavery in England, the English were very fond of slavery in the United States, as they were extensively profiteering from cheap cotton that the English industrialists were relying upon, therefore, they never really were against the abolition of slavery in the newly formed United States and looked the other way. The academic institutions that were set up in the US were replicas of the academia in Britain, and the formulation of the laws and justice is still not far from the British.
Is this the idea you have in mind?

Yes English is the dominant language and most people are white, but neither are requirements to be considered American.

To be a naturalized US citizen, you need to pass English and civic tests.  Or are you speaking about illegals? You can also reside in Europe illegally, so that's no different.

As a native of France, in your opinion will an immigrant ever be considered French? Or will they always be considered an immigrant, even if they've learned French and lived there for decades? What about their children if they marry within that same immigrant group?

Yes, a Danish or French or Swiss citizen regardless of ethnicity or race is considered Danish, French or Swiss, etc. by the individual country law.
I’m not sure if you are conflating race with ethnicity. The second generation Austrian or Dutch is certainly considered French among those who are somewhat racists, because they can't even tell that these people are any different than French (perhaps by the last name). I’ve never heard of any French consider a second generation Hungarian, who is white and speaks French with no accent as non-French if they are French citizens.

Cultural assimilation has been going on in the US since the country was created. The fist generation that immigrates may or may not learn the language and depending on the area and the country they're coming from may be able to get by in an ethnic enclave without it for decades (Chinese, Polish, Italians, Germans, etc.). The second generation learn English growing up, in school if nothing else, but they will probably speak their parents native language at home. By the third generation odds are the kids will be English only speakers, maybe picking up their grandparents native language (if they're still alive) but probably speaking English at home. By the fourth generation they will probably have married outside their specific country of origin and be some sort of mix. You're not likely to find many people who's ancestors immigrated 100 years ago that are still 100% Irish, German, Chinese, etc.

After the Reformation, a multiplicity of different ethnic, religious groups have migrated within the European continent and have assimilated without much discrimination.  Huguenots in Prussia, Moravians in Denmark, and so on.
Ever since the formation of states on the European continent, multiple ethnic groups have been establishing and dissolving states up to now; therefore the Europeans are accustom to multi-ethnic diversity.  Switzerland is a good example of that since it's comprised of three major ethnic groups.
 

Also, the kind of immigrants the US attracts are generally those that are willing to work hard to improve their situation. They are more likely to assimilate into American culture as it represents a chance for them to improve the situation for themselves and their children.

This is no different for European immigrants.

My boss's boss (in charge of several thousand people) immigrated from Vietnam as a child and constantly talks about all the opportunities he's had growing up as an American versus in a communist country.

There are many people from different nationalities and ethnic groups having better opportunities and succeeding in Europe from all over the world, so I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
The Vietnamese are doing very well in Warsaw, plenty of successful Turkish businesses in Germany, Lebanese and Egyptians in France, Punjabis and Sri Lankans in Britain, etc. 
To say that only America gives people better opportunities in life reeks of unfounded exceptionalism.

Perhaps you meant to ask these questions from the point of view of someone who might be xenophobic, nativistic, racist, etc.? But then the answers still wouldn't be any different from the point of view of that type of person in the US. 

[ctuser1]

At least for the US, I do know it is fairly easy to show that immigrants do much better economically and otherwise compared to EU.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/international/for-immigrants-america-is-still-more-welcoming-than-europe.html
(opinion piece that cites a lot of data)

Employment is not the only barrier. Children from less-educated immigrant families are much less likely to succeed at school in Europe than the sons and daughters of natives, and much more likely to end up marginalized: out of school and out of work. Immigrants feel discriminated against more often in Europe. Perceived discrimination is particularly acute among the European-born children of immigrants, who in several countries still do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

As Professor Foner put it: “The United States does a better job at accepting immigrants as Americans in the making.”

Now, in some of the measures other countries like Canada/Australia/NJ do better than US.

I don't intend to attack European values. However, just by the accident of history, Canada/US/Australia/NZ will have a different level of acceptance of migrants than any other country that is not primarily an "immigrant country". That's just a reality of it. I say this EVEN after being fully aware of the rise of drumpf.


 

[Rosy]

At least for the US, I do know it is fairly easy to show that immigrants do much better economically and otherwise compared to EU.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/international/for-immigrants-america-is-still-more-welcoming-than-europe.html
(opinion piece that cites a lot of data)

Employment is not the only barrier. Children from less-educated immigrant families are much less likely to succeed at school in Europe than the sons and daughters of natives, and much more likely to end up marginalized: out of school and out of work. Immigrants feel discriminated against more often in Europe. Perceived discrimination is particularly acute among the European-born children of immigrants, who in several countries still do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

As Professor Foner put it: “The United States does a better job at accepting immigrants as Americans in the making.”

Now, in some of the measures other countries like Canada/Australia/NJ do better than US.

I don't intend to attack European values. However, just by the accident of history, Canada/US/Australia/NZ will have a different level of acceptance of migrants than any other country that is not primarily an "immigrant country". That's just a reality of it. I say this EVEN after being fully aware of the rise of drumpf.

First of all this NYT 'opinion' piece was written in 2015 and cited data from 2013.
Since then Europe has been dealing with a refugee crisis of biblical proportions which cannot be compared to the level of immigration in the US.

In fact this entire opinion piece reads more like a book review:

Richard Alba and Nancy Foner, sociologists at the City University of New York, just published the book “Strangers No More,” (Princeton University Press). They compare the challenges facing low-status immigrants in North America and Western Europe.

 In the end, they do not make a definitive call on which experience is better.

“There are complex arrays of similarities and differences,” Professor Alba told me.

Yes, it is a complicated issue.

[ctuser1]

At least for the US, I do know it is fairly easy to show that immigrants do much better economically and otherwise compared to EU.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/international/for-immigrants-america-is-still-more-welcoming-than-europe.html
(opinion piece that cites a lot of data)

Employment is not the only barrier. Children from less-educated immigrant families are much less likely to succeed at school in Europe than the sons and daughters of natives, and much more likely to end up marginalized: out of school and out of work. Immigrants feel discriminated against more often in Europe. Perceived discrimination is particularly acute among the European-born children of immigrants, who in several countries still do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

As Professor Foner put it: “The United States does a better job at accepting immigrants as Americans in the making.”

Now, in some of the measures other countries like Canada/Australia/NJ do better than US.

I don't intend to attack European values. However, just by the accident of history, Canada/US/Australia/NZ will have a different level of acceptance of migrants than any other country that is not primarily an "immigrant country". That's just a reality of it. I say this EVEN after being fully aware of the rise of drumpf.

First of all this NYT 'opinion' piece was written in 2015 and cited data from 2013.
Since then Europe has been dealing with a refugee crisis of biblical proportions which cannot be compared to the level of immigration in the US.

In fact this entire opinion piece reads more like a book review:

Richard Alba and Nancy Foner, sociologists at the City University of New York, just published the book “Strangers No More,” (Princeton University Press). They compare the challenges facing low-status immigrants in North America and Western Europe.

 In the end, they do not make a definitive call on which experience is better.

“There are complex arrays of similarities and differences,” Professor Alba told me.

Yes, it is a complicated issue.

Yes, it is complicated. And it is extremely likely that I may be biased.

But here is why I think US approach to immigration is better (despite Drumpf):

1. The skilled immigration works way better than any other country.
I have seen data on this before, can't find them right now. But basically, the economic success of the "skilled workers" is much higher, and they drive innovation my better than any other country.
Yes, there  are negatives. The entire H1B program is problematic - they should be given Green Cards instead (may be provisional at first, then GC after a few years). But that is more of a detail.

2. The low skilled immigrants have much less access to any safety net in the US. [It's true for all immigrants - even GC holders don't get food stamps or any other federally funded safety nets, which I tragically learned when one of my erstwhile colleague - an immigrant - died and his family became low income overnight.]
As tragic as that situation may be (and it should be remedied for such tragic cases) - as a system that may actually be working better as evidenced by higher employment levels even for low skilled immigrants.

The only issue (and it is a fundamental problem that can basically destroy America as we know it) with the US immigration policies is that it has stopped being sufficiently open to immigrants.

Anecdotal evidences don't matter too much. But, my perceptions are also shaped by the fact that I have been to many corners of the world and have had discussions with many immigrants from/to many countries. If you did the same, I think you will find out that immigrants to US are far more successful, hopeful and STILL see America as the City on the Hill that they aspire to, than immigrants in basically any other countries including countries like Canada that I KNOW has much more immigrant-friendly cultures. It's appears ironic to me!! America has become so xenophobic off late - and yet immigrants seem to love it!! Canada loves it's immigrants and gives them access to safety net from the get go, and yet does not get such admiration back as the US!!!

Why do you think EU immigration policies are better? Maybe I will learn something new if you had the patience to explain?

[PDXTabs]

1. The skilled immigration works way better than any other country.
I have seen data on this before, can't find them right now. But basically, the economic success of the "skilled workers" is much higher, and they drive innovation my better than any other country.
Yes, there  are negatives. The entire H1B program is problematic - they should be given Green Cards instead (may be provisional at first, then GC after a few years). But that is more of a detail.

You mean like an EU Blue Card?

[Catica]

From your article:

Among the most notable is clearly Europe’s segmented labor market, difficult for newcomers to crack. In the United States, less-educated immigrants may work for little pay. But the vast majority of them work. The employment rate of immigrants is higher than that of natives. In Europe it is lower.

This is all driven by exploitation of cheap labor and institutionalized low wages.  Change that dynamic and see how welcoming we are to immigrants and how happy they are to compete with Americans for jobs.

[Bloop Bloop]

The US is a land of opportunity and has helped so many migrants make better lives for themselves.

Look at all the Asian and Indian doctors, engineers, lawyers, tech entrepreneurs...they are all success stories from the past few decades.

From the point of view of any major country, embracing migration and encouraging skilled migrants is a no-brainer.

[katsiki]

Interesting discussion. 

Quality of life - my personal experience in Europe has been a few airports and one night in Italy when there was plane trouble. In general, the impression I get is a lower standard of living than most Americans are used to - at least in material terms. Smaller living spaces, fewer amenities/luxuries, fewer vehicles, etc.

I would consider most of that list a benefit.  Maybe not smaller living spaces so much..   Perhaps, the majority of Americans would see them as negatives though.  I bet the majority of MMMers would not.

I have only visited Europe but have had the luxury of staying with family for long (by American standards of vacation) periods of time.  Love it and hope to spend months out of the year there in retirement.

[Feivel2000]

Will the EU last? Who knows, maybe it will move more to a free trade zone than a unification project (USEU). Will the Euro survive? Who knows. Money reforms were plentiful for Germany in the last hundred years, and economically, we survived.

For immigration we would need a better mindset. It's our best bet against lower birth rates. But it won't happen over night.

Health insurance doesn't come for free, in Germany. If you earn 50k brutto, you'll have to pay around 400 € per month for health insurance. But I prefer this over having to pay 5-6 figures for a complicated birth... It's insurance after all.

Quality of life - my personal experience in Europe has been a few airports and one night in Italy when there was plane trouble. In general, the impression I get is a lower standard of living than most Americans are used to - at least in material terms. Smaller living spaces, fewer amenities/luxuries, fewer vehicles, etc.

This one surprises me. Of course, it depends on the place in Europe. Germany != France != Romania. French will probably live smaller but eat better, while Germans tend to spend more on their cars. Yes, the cars here are mostly smaller. But not driving a pick up in a city is nothing I would consider lower standard of living.

If I look at consumer debt as % of GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_debt), I see the US at 192% and Germany at 78%. With that in mind, I wonder if (especially on this site) more stuff means more standard of living...

[Plina]

Quality of life - my personal experience in Europe has been a few airports and one night in Italy when there was plane trouble. In general, the impression I get is a lower standard of living than most Americans are used to - at least in material terms. Smaller living spaces, fewer amenities/luxuries, fewer vehicles, etc.

This one surprises me. Of course, it depends on the place in Europe. Germany != France != Romania. French will probably live smaller but eat better, while Germans tend to spend more on their cars. Yes, the cars here are mostly smaller. But not driving a pick up in a city is nothing I would consider lower standard of living.

If I look at consumer debt as % of GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_debt), I see the US at 192% and Germany at 78%. With that in mind, I wonder if (especially on this site) more stuff means more standard of living...
[/quote]

The pickup drivning has always baffled me. Here pickups are mostly owned by companies in trades or young guys doing a stupid purchase for a couple of years until they come to their senses. You would not see them in middle class neighbourhoods. Maybe in some working class neighbourhood. I grew up in the middle of nowhere and they are not even common there.

[markbrynn]

Anecdotal evidences don't matter too much. But, my perceptions are also shaped by the fact that I have been to many corners of the world and have had discussions with many immigrants from/to many countries. If you did the same, I think you will find out that immigrants to US are far more successful, hopeful and STILL see America as the City on the Hill that they aspire to, than immigrants in basically any other countries including countries like Canada that I KNOW has much more immigrant-friendly cultures. It's appears ironic to me!! America has become so xenophobic off late - and yet immigrants seem to love it!! Canada loves it's immigrants and gives them access to safety net from the get go, and yet does not get such admiration back as the US!!!

I live in NW Europe (the Netherlands), have lived in the US, Canada and a couple other EU countries. What jumps out at me when it comes to the above quote is American marketing. In my book, there is no country on earth that works so hard to market itself. And it's not just focused on people from other countries. It markets the wonders of America to Americans. I think this has a profound effect on how people view the country. If the good keeps getting highlighted (lots of space, lots of money) and the bad keeps getting swept under the rug (work-life balance, lack of safety net) then of course everybody thinks the US is great.

This also carries over into criticism. It seems that Americans are so trained to think of their country as special and the "greatest in the world" that the tendency is to defend it against any criticism. This is all a generalisation, but my experience has been that Americans will generally talk about how great their country is, ignore how many other wonderful countries there are in the world, take criticism of their country very seriously and feel quite relaxed about dumping on other countries. There are people from other countries who do this as well, but I hope we can all strive to be better than that and not try to "win" the contest for the best country (hint: there is no right answer).

[LWYRUP]

@markbrynn, I appreciate your thoughts, but they don't match my experience.  There are tons of Americans that critique America very sharply; you can find comments like that all over this forum.

[Catica]

@markbrynn, I appreciate your thoughts, but they don't match my experience.  There are tons of Americans that critique America very sharply; you can find comments like that all over this forum.

These people are in the minority. They are being pathologized, often labeled as self-loathing individuals. Constructive criticism is unwelcomed and uncomfortable in the general public.
Unctuous platitudinizing and placation is the contemporaneous modus operandi, not critical thinking.

[LWYRUP]

@markbrynn, I appreciate your thoughts, but they don't match my experience.  There are tons of Americans that critique America very sharply; you can find comments like that all over this forum.

These people are in the minority. They are being pathologized, often labeled as self-loathing individuals. Constructive criticism is unwelcomed and uncomfortable in the general public.
Unctuous platitudinizing and placation is the contemporaneous modus operandi, not critical thinking.

You and I must hang in different circles. 

[Catica]

Anecdotal evidences don't matter too much. But, my perceptions are also shaped by the fact that I have been to many corners of the world and have had discussions with many immigrants from/to many countries. If you did the same, I think you will find out that immigrants to US are far more successful, hopeful and STILL see America as the City on the Hill that they aspire to, than immigrants in basically any other countries including countries like Canada that I KNOW has much more immigrant-friendly cultures. It's appears ironic to me!! America has become so xenophobic off late - and yet immigrants seem to love it!! Canada loves it's immigrants and gives them access to safety net from the get go, and yet does not get such admiration back as the US!!!

I live in NW Europe (the Netherlands), have lived in the US, Canada and a couple other EU countries. What jumps out at me when it comes to the above quote is American marketing. In my book, there is no country on earth that works so hard to market itself. And it's not just focused on people from other countries. It markets the wonders of America to Americans. I think this has a profound effect on how people view the country. If the good keeps getting highlighted (lots of space, lots of money) and the bad keeps getting swept under the rug (work-life balance, lack of safety net) then of course everybody thinks the US is great.

This also carries over into criticism. It seems that Americans are so trained to think of their country as special and the "greatest in the world" that the tendency is to defend it against any criticism. This is all a generalisation, but my experience has been that Americans will generally talk about how great their country is, ignore how many other wonderful countries there are in the world, take criticism of their country very seriously and feel quite relaxed about dumping on other countries. There are people from other countries who do this as well, but I hope we can all strive to be better than that and not try to "win" the contest for the best country (hint: there is no right answer).

Very astute observation but I think it's beyond marketing.  It’s part of the social engineering strategy, where perceptions are hijacked for some sort of perceived comfort and it renders people intellectually lazy.
 
 

[ctuser1]

Social engineering alone won’t explain the raw economic number differences.

I’d take the intellectually “lazy” people any day who start businesses and climb corporate ladders at a higher/faster rate.

[Shane]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

[markbrynn]

Social engineering alone won’t explain the raw economic number differences.

I’d take the intellectually “lazy” people any day who start businesses and climb corporate ladders at a higher/faster rate.

Your second sentence is the key to me. That's what you would take. And with that comes (in the US) little safety net, big gap between rich and poor, often more crime, etc., etc. In some parts of Europe, we have a pretty stable environment where you can strive and be more successful financially (though almost certainly less so than in the US), but you also live a more humble (in the sense of simple) life, enjoying the benefits and protections of a more socialist society. One is not right or wrong. There are just plenty of Europeans willing to suggest that life is pretty good following this model. And this is ignoring the glamorisations of French cheese, Belgian beer, etc. which are great but fairly readily available in the US as well.

[realG]

Also, the kind of immigrants the US attracts are generally those that are willing to work hard to improve their situation. They are more likely to assimilate into American culture as it represents a chance for them to improve the situation for themselves and their children.

This is no different for European immigrants.

What makes you think it's no different for European immigrants?
I'd say it's different for France. In France we pay higher taxes so that would not always be the #1 choice for a skilled worker. The migrants in Calais all want to join UK / don't want to stay in France.
We have a very good social welfare even for people who don't work so yes I'd say that attracts all kind of immigrants, not only the hard working ones.

@Michael in ABQ : There's no discrimination in France, someone that lives in France is considered french.

[ctuser1]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

I don't think the economists and the government policy-makers in Norway are thinking it through all the way from the perspective of the immigrant when all these policies are designed.

Immigrants, like all other human beings, are not Homo Economicus. The economic immigrant from Mumbai-India, or Akra-Ghana does not come from a welfare state. When he/she is trying to take the initiative to run halfway across the world, he is not doing so to survive on handouts. Indeed, based on what I have heard from talking to people (completely anecdotal information) handouts damage their sense of achievement and self-worth. Qualifying only after they have contributed for some time to the society (i.e. the US approach) by working, jives much better with them than the Norwegian approach of assistance from the beginning.

So, while I understand that the American policy to deny welfare to immigrants (even legal immigrants) was rooted in anti-immigrant sentiments, they - in my anecdotal and gut-feel view completely unsupported by data - may actually be immigrant friendly in the end.

While the above is anecdotal, the economic results - I believe - would support this view.

[Sibley]

9.  Long term, Europeans are screwed economically because their birthrates have plummeted. Aging and dying populations aren't growing their economies.  The US is heading down the same path but maybe 20-30 years later.   

I read an article recently that was reporting that based on birth rates, by 2100 most of the world would have decreased in population, some by up to 50%. It's not just Europe. China, Japan, India, etc have declining birthrates. Only immigration would really help. Africa I believe was projected to have a population increase.

One can only hope it turns out to be true that the human population of Earth will go down by 50%. Things just can't continue the way they've been.

A massive decrease in population would be potentially destabilizing.  A moderately declining population coupled with significant advances in sustainable development and sustainable management of resources would be ideal.

Absolutely. Combined with climate change and the need to migrate, the human race is in for a challenge. Tribalism in all its forms will be counterproductive to overall cooperation, yet its likely to increase.

[Shane]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

I don't think the economists and the government policy-makers in Norway are thinking it through all the way from the perspective of the immigrant when all these policies are designed.

Immigrants, like all other human beings, are not Homo Economicus. The economic immigrant from Mumbai-India, or Akra-Ghana does not come from a welfare state. When he/she is trying to take the initiative to run halfway across the world, he is not doing so to survive on handouts. Indeed, based on what I have heard from talking to people (completely anecdotal information) handouts damage their sense of achievement and self-worth. Qualifying only after they have contributed for some time to the society (i.e. the US approach) by working, jives much better with them than the Norwegian approach of assistance from the beginning.

So, while I understand that the American policy to deny welfare to immigrants (even legal immigrants) was rooted in anti-immigrant sentiments, they - in my anecdotal and gut-feel view completely unsupported by data - may actually be immigrant friendly in the end.

While the above is anecdotal, the economic results - I believe - would support this view.

In the US, we knowingly and intentionally allow tens of millions of workers to remain in our country illegally, for decades. That way, if the immigrants get sick and become unable to work, or start to complain about working conditions, like they want raises or a safe workplace, then we can just kick them out. The US immigration system weeds out weak immigrants. Only the strong survive. It may be the best for the US, but not sure it's the most humane system.

[markbrynn]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

I don't think the economists and the government policy-makers in Norway are thinking it through all the way from the perspective of the immigrant when all these policies are designed.

Immigrants, like all other human beings, are not Homo Economicus. The economic immigrant from Mumbai-India, or Akra-Ghana does not come from a welfare state. When he/she is trying to take the initiative to run halfway across the world, he is not doing so to survive on handouts. Indeed, based on what I have heard from talking to people (completely anecdotal information) handouts damage their sense of achievement and self-worth. Qualifying only after they have contributed for some time to the society (i.e. the US approach) by working, jives much better with them than the Norwegian approach of assistance from the beginning.

So, while I understand that the American policy to deny welfare to immigrants (even legal immigrants) was rooted in anti-immigrant sentiments, they - in my anecdotal and gut-feel view completely unsupported by data - may actually be immigrant friendly in the end.

While the above is anecdotal, the economic results - I believe - would support this view.

This is an interesting argument. I can see how motivation can often help to bring about better results. And the availability of jobs plays a massive role in whether immigration works well or not. You don't need as many benefits/safety nets if there are loads of jobs available.

What the quote above doesn't address is, what happens to the people who get stuck somewhere along the way (medical issue, bad luck, economic downturn)? The lack of safety net is a very real issue for them. Some people focus more on the big picture of the economy and booming success stories. Others focus on trying to help the most people to have a reasonably comfortable life (hopefully working, but govt-supported if necessary).

This is also part of the marketing issue I mentioned earlier. Success stories are easy to see and highlight. Are we better off as a society to have 5% of immigrants make it pretty big, 45% do okay and 55% be in pretty dire straights? Or to have nobody make it really big, 95% do okay and 5% struggle? (all numbers made up). It would be nice if we could get the best of both worlds and allow for spectacular success, but protect against the downsides. If that's not possible, it seems to be a personal/cultural thing about which is better.

[ctuser1]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

I don't think the economists and the government policy-makers in Norway are thinking it through all the way from the perspective of the immigrant when all these policies are designed.

Immigrants, like all other human beings, are not Homo Economicus. The economic immigrant from Mumbai-India, or Akra-Ghana does not come from a welfare state. When he/she is trying to take the initiative to run halfway across the world, he is not doing so to survive on handouts. Indeed, based on what I have heard from talking to people (completely anecdotal information) handouts damage their sense of achievement and self-worth. Qualifying only after they have contributed for some time to the society (i.e. the US approach) by working, jives much better with them than the Norwegian approach of assistance from the beginning.

So, while I understand that the American policy to deny welfare to immigrants (even legal immigrants) was rooted in anti-immigrant sentiments, they - in my anecdotal and gut-feel view completely unsupported by data - may actually be immigrant friendly in the end.

While the above is anecdotal, the economic results - I believe - would support this view.

This is an interesting argument. I can see how motivation can often help to bring about better results. And the availability of jobs plays a massive role in whether immigration works well or not. You don't need as many benefits/safety nets if there are loads of jobs available.

What the quote above doesn't address is, what happens to the people who get stuck somewhere along the way (medical issue, bad luck, economic downturn)? The lack of safety net is a very real issue for them. Some people focus more on the big picture of the economy and booming success stories. Others focus on trying to help the most people to have a reasonably comfortable life (hopefully working, but govt-supported if necessary).

This is also part of the marketing issue I mentioned earlier. Success stories are easy to see and highlight. Are we better off as a society to have 5% of immigrants make it pretty big, 45% do okay and 55% be in pretty dire straights? Or to have nobody make it really big, 95% do okay and 5% struggle? (all numbers made up). It would be nice if we could get the best of both worlds and allow for spectacular success, but protect against the downsides. If that's not possible, it seems to be a personal/cultural thing about which is better.

I would argue it should be driven by two separate factors:
1. What is in the interest of the people of the "host country", where this definition of "people" includes current/future/aspiring immigrants.
2. What is the perspective of the immigrant's themselves? Some of them are running to save their lives (Syrians), but most are simply economic migrants who are not really aspiring to live off of government handouts.

The US approach to this (while it has major problems, like Shane pointed out the case with illegal immigrants) seems to have won out in the marketplace of ideas, at least among the aspiring immigrants. You probably think that is due to marketing. I personally think that is because it appeals to what the immigrants really want. This approach will likely result in worse outcomes for a large segment of the immigrants - which IMO is a necessary collateral damage.

I also think you are underestimating the motivation enhancer effect of giving ALL immigrants a small but fair shot at becoming one of those 5% who make it big, which is an intangible that I think would often jive with people who has the initiative to pack up and leave.

[markbrynn]

Seems like it should go without saying, but Europe is NOT a monolith in regards to immigration. Each EU country maintains its own system. A family friend in Norway works for the government as a kind of immigrant/refugee advocate: teaching language classes, helping to prepare for job interviews, helping find an apartment, etc. The level of assistance offered to immigrants and refugees in Norway, as described by our friend, seems above and beyond anything I've ever heard of happening in the US. I've known many immigrants in the US, and my impression has always been that they were, more or less, on their own. Nobody from the US government was helping them to make their way as a new US resident/citizen. My understanding is that the immigration system in Norway has been designed by economists, with the goal of maximizing future taxes paid by immigrants. Apparently, Norway calculates that giving immigrants and refugees a relatively high level of personalized assistance on the front end will translate into more success for them and, eventually, more net taxes paid in to the system, and less money taken out in the form of Welfare, etc. A nice thing about the Norwegian system is that no one pays tuition for university or any other type of vocational training, which seems like it has a kind of equalizing effect on their society. My brother's a HS teacher in Norway. When he meets with students' parents to discuss post HS plans, one question that, he says, never needs to be discussed is cost, because everyone pays the same tuition in Norway: 0 kr.

I don't think the economists and the government policy-makers in Norway are thinking it through all the way from the perspective of the immigrant when all these policies are designed.

Immigrants, like all other human beings, are not Homo Economicus. The economic immigrant from Mumbai-India, or Akra-Ghana does not come from a welfare state. When he/she is trying to take the initiative to run halfway across the world, he is not doing so to survive on handouts. Indeed, based on what I have heard from talking to people (completely anecdotal information) handouts damage their sense of achievement and self-worth. Qualifying only after they have contributed for some time to the society (i.e. the US approach) by working, jives much better with them than the Norwegian approach of assistance from the beginning.

So, while I understand that the American policy to deny welfare to immigrants (even legal immigrants) was rooted in anti-immigrant sentiments, they - in my anecdotal and gut-feel view completely unsupported by data - may actually be immigrant friendly in the end.

While the above is anecdotal, the economic results - I believe - would support this view.

This is an interesting argument. I can see how motivation can often help to bring about better results. And the availability of jobs plays a massive role in whether immigration works well or not. You don't need as many benefits/safety nets if there are loads of jobs available.

What the quote above doesn't address is, what happens to the people who get stuck somewhere along the way (medical issue, bad luck, economic downturn)? The lack of safety net is a very real issue for them. Some people focus more on the big picture of the economy and booming success stories. Others focus on trying to help the most people to have a reasonably comfortable life (hopefully working, but govt-supported if necessary).

This is also part of the marketing issue I mentioned earlier. Success stories are easy to see and highlight. Are we better off as a society to have 5% of immigrants make it pretty big, 45% do okay and 55% be in pretty dire straights? Or to have nobody make it really big, 95% do okay and 5% struggle? (all numbers made up). It would be nice if we could get the best of both worlds and allow for spectacular success, but protect against the downsides. If that's not possible, it seems to be a personal/cultural thing about which is better.

I would argue it should be driven by two separate factors:
1. What is in the interest of the people of the "host country", where this definition of "people" includes current/future/aspiring immigrants.
2. What is the perspective of the immigrant's themselves? Some of them are running to save their lives (Syrians), but most are simply economic migrants who are not really aspiring to live off of government handouts.

The US approach to this (while it has major problems, like Shane pointed out the case with illegal immigrants) seems to have won out in the marketplace of ideas, at least among the aspiring immigrants. You probably think that is due to marketing. I personally think that is because it appeals to what the immigrants really want. This approach will likely result in worse outcomes for a large segment of the immigrants - which IMO is a necessary collateral damage.

I also think you are underestimating the motivation enhancer effect of giving ALL immigrants a small but fair shot at becoming one of those 5% who make it big, which is an intangible that I think would often jive with people who has the initiative to pack up and leave.

It could be. I think it's the difference in believing the American Dream is to get to the top 10% (and let 95% of immigrants "fail") and believing that it should be for immigrants to get a fair chance to a much better standard of living for them and their children. I think in many parts of Europe we provide the latter opportunity. My city, country, company I work for, they all have many, many successful immigrants who found a better life here. I can't account for all the people who throw their money and efforts into becoming one of the 1% (future singers, sports stars, etc.). Most don't make it, but the allure is strong for some.

I know this will sound simplistic, but it sounds like, if immigrants want to buy a lottery ticket, go to the US. But if they want a sound investment with a high probability of a good outcome, go somewhere else. Does that make sense or is it unfair?

[ctuser1]

I know this will sound simplistic, but it sounds like, if immigrants want to buy a lottery ticket, go to the US. But if they want a sound investment with a high probability of a good outcome, go somewhere else. Does that make sense or is it unfair?

For illegal immigrants, (which is a massive frigging humanitarian problem that should not be tolerated) - you are in fact understating the problem, they have no shot at making it big and all the problems!

For legal immigrants who have a shot at becoming citizens after 5 years (which is the correct way to do immigration) - US probably represents the best of both worlds with some exceptions. It is incorrect to say US has no/weak safety net. Most of the blue states (and certainly where I live - CT) have very good safety nets comparable to Europe that immigrants qualify for once they become citizens.

All these are purely my opinion that is supported only by my perception driven by anecdotal experiences, not data driven research.

[Bloop Bloop]

I know this will sound simplistic, but it sounds like, if immigrants want to buy a lottery ticket, go to the US. But if they want a sound investment with a high probability of a good outcome, go somewhere else. Does that make sense or is it unfair?

For illegal immigrants, (which is a massive frigging humanitarian problem that should not be tolerated) - you are in fact understating the problem, they have no shot at making it big and all the problems!

For legal immigrants who have a shot at becoming citizens after 5 years (which is the correct way to do immigration) - US probably represents the best of both worlds with some exceptions. It is incorrect to say US has no/weak safety net. Most of the blue states (and certainly where I live - CT) have very good safety nets comparable to Europe that immigrants qualify for once they become citizens.

All these are purely my opinion that is supported only by my perception driven by anecdotal experiences, not data driven research.

I think if you're someone who's intellectually capable and not beset by a chronic illness then the U.S. is a very good place to live. Certainly the bang for buck in the U.S. far exceeds that anywhere else. First year lawyers at big firms in the US earn $160k US ($250k AU), which you'd be lucky to earn here after 10 years of practice even as a comparably gifted lawyer. (Seriously.)

The US is great if you're in the top 10-20% of the populace in terms of skills/entrepreneurial talent.

And yeah, I know the U.S. sucks in some ways, but you can alleviate a lot of the problems by living in a rich suburb in a blue state.

[markbrynn]

I still think that the last two replies (ctuser1 and bloopbloop) are ignoring the fact, even as you more or less point it out, that the majority of the immigrants are not going to live in rich suburbs and blue states (and probably can't afford to in the short term, even if they eventually might be able to). So, is the US automatically the better option for them?

Maybe it's an illusion caused by the anecdotes they put on tv, but aren't there an awful lot of people struggling to get by in the US? All I ever hear about is kids needing to go to school to get free lunches so they get enough nutrition; adults working 2 or 3 jobs; no health insurance and risk of crazy bills; water and electricity shutoff; evictions; people working 60 or more hours per week; no vacation time or even sick time for many. None of these things are perfect in Europe, but my impression is that your safety net misses a lot. Why do people have to donate money to a food bank? Where is the safety net to prevent that need for that charity?

I find it frustrating because either well-meaning people like those on this forum are completely ignoring a massive problem, or Americans are doing a lot better than I think they are and everything I've seen/read (tv/internet, but also in person in the US) is wrong.

[Bloop Bloop]

I still think that the last two replies (ctuser1 and bloopbloop) are ignoring the fact, even as you more or less point it out, that the majority of the immigrants are not going to live in rich suburbs and blue states (and probably can't afford to in the short term, even if they eventually might be able to). So, is the US automatically the better option for them?

Maybe it's an illusion caused by the anecdotes they put on tv, but aren't there an awful lot of people struggling to get by in the US? All I ever hear about is kids needing to go to school to get free lunches so they get enough nutrition; adults working 2 or 3 jobs; no health insurance and risk of crazy bills; water and electricity shutoff; evictions; people working 60 or more hours per week; no vacation time or even sick time for many. None of these things are perfect in Europe, but my impression is that your safety net misses a lot. Why do people have to donate money to a food bank? Where is the safety net to prevent that need for that charity?

I find it frustrating because either well-meaning people like those on this forum are completely ignoring a massive problem, or Americans are doing a lot better than I think they are and everything I've seen/read (tv/internet, but also in person in the US) is wrong.

It's a bit of both. As I said (and I've lived in America), there's basically two Americas. Rich America and Poor America. Once you're entrenched it can be hard to move places, but I'd say that for new migrants who want to work their way up, the U.S. still presents a lot of opportunity.

So if you're a migrant, your prospects will largely be determined by your work ethic, your educational background, your health (i.e. absence of chronic conditions that will put you out of work), your intelligence, and your luck. The 'model minority' bloc in the U.S. shows that a lot of skilled migrants can come to the country and within 1 full generation their kids can turn out to be doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. So it definitely is the land of opportunity for at least a sizeable minority. Having lived in the U.S. and Australia, I actually think that Australia is a lot more racist in some ways than the U.S.; there are almost no people of colour here on TV or in cultural institutions, whereas the U.S. has been a lot better at integrating blacks, latinos and Asians. But you are also right in saying that the "good bits" of the US come often at the expense of the "bad bits". It's closer to a dog eat dog society.

[Samuel]

I still think that the last two replies (ctuser1 and bloopbloop) are ignoring the fact, even as you more or less point it out, that the majority of the immigrants are not going to live in rich suburbs and blue states (and probably can't afford to in the short term, even if they eventually might be able to). So, is the US automatically the better option for them?

Maybe it's an illusion caused by the anecdotes they put on tv, but aren't there an awful lot of people struggling to get by in the US? All I ever hear about is kids needing to go to school to get free lunches so they get enough nutrition; adults working 2 or 3 jobs; no health insurance and risk of crazy bills; water and electricity shutoff; evictions; people working 60 or more hours per week; no vacation time or even sick time for many. None of these things are perfect in Europe, but my impression is that your safety net misses a lot. Why do people have to donate money to a food bank? Where is the safety net to prevent that need for that charity?

I find it frustrating because either well-meaning people like those on this forum are completely ignoring a massive problem, or Americans are doing a lot better than I think they are and everything I've seen/read (tv/internet, but also in person in the US) is wrong.

This is actually one of the big differences between the conservative and the liberal positions in the US. Conservatives see private (voluntary but encouraged by tax deductions) charity as an integral piece of the safety net and find it generally preferable to massive top down government programs that they feel inevitably become bloated and inefficient and nearly impossible to roll back or reform once in place. To their credit conservatives do tend to donate more of their own money to charity than liberals, although it's often run through their preferred religious organizations which can lead to help with strings attached and a patchy safety net overall. Liberals are more comfortable with government taxing and spending on social programs and generally feel like unless there is a government program to address a problem we're not taking it seriously as a country.

[ctuser1]

To address markbrynn's point about ignoring the poor underbelly of America - I think immigrants are people with initiative and often more social capital than the generational poor in the US. This means I don't expect them to rot in the lower rungs of the society. They should be able to work hard and climb their way out. The US still provides the best opportunity of any country for them to do that to any immigrant of any color/ethnicity.

If you can work hard, have a stable family (i.e. two adults working), and work a minimum wage job anywhere in the US, you will not be what is defined economically as "poor". Most immigrants will fall in this category.

So I am not really ignoring that underbelly. I just think most immigrants have above average initiative, skills and social capital. i.e. they are, in their own way, "privileged" over and above the generational poor in the US.

I also think you may be overestimating the generational poverty in the US. When I look up the rate of poverty - they aren't all that much different. Indeed, the nominal poverty rate is lower in the US compared to Germany.

That's why my argument is that immigrants indeed get the best of both worlds in the US - a shot at making it big, while not being THAT economically disadvantaged based on the raw economic numbers. This of course ignores the undocumented, which is a different story.

--------------------------------------------------

I still think that the last two replies (ctuser1 and bloopbloop) are ignoring the fact, even as you more or less point it out, that the majority of the immigrants are not going to live in rich suburbs and blue states (and probably can't afford to in the short term, even if they eventually might be able to). So, is the US automatically the better option for them?

Maybe it's an illusion caused by the anecdotes they put on tv, but aren't there an awful lot of people struggling to get by in the US? All I ever hear about is kids needing to go to school to get free lunches so they get enough nutrition; adults working 2 or 3 jobs; no health insurance and risk of crazy bills; water and electricity shutoff; evictions; people working 60 or more hours per week; no vacation time or even sick time for many. None of these things are perfect in Europe, but my impression is that your safety net misses a lot. Why do people have to donate money to a food bank? Where is the safety net to prevent that need for that charity?

I find it frustrating because either well-meaning people like those on this forum are completely ignoring a massive problem, or Americans are doing a lot better than I think they are and everything I've seen/read (tv/internet, but also in person in the US) is wrong.

This is actually one of the big differences between the conservative and the liberal positions in the US. Conservatives see private (voluntary but encouraged by tax deductions) charity as an integral piece of the safety net and find it generally preferable to massive top down government programs that they feel inevitably become bloated and inefficient and nearly impossible to roll back or reform once in place. To their credit conservatives do tend to donate more of their own money to charity than liberals, although it's often run through their preferred religious organizations which can lead to help with strings attached and a patchy safety net overall. Liberals are more comfortable with government taxing and spending on social programs and generally feel like unless there is a government program to address a problem we're not taking it seriously as a country.

The bolded is not a definitive, proven statement. In fact, I'd argue that the truth is closer to being the exact opposite.

The so called conservative charity mostly involves giving "tithe". Majority of the tithe goes into upkeep of the churches, paying salary for the ministers and missionary activities. None of these are "charity". The actual charity done with this money is miniscule - and when you make any such adjustment - the numbers completely flip.

For reference, most "liberals" live in high-state-tax blue states and much of their state tax money go to social programs in these blue states (in addition to supporting bureaucratic government functions which don't count as redistribution). Should that also not count as "charity" if you insist including "tithe" in the number. Just because IRS defines something in the "Charity" column - that does not mean it is sacrosanct. So called conservatives have donated millions of $$ in political organizations (e.g. Knights of Columbus) engaging in massive anti-gay-rights activities - I'm not so certain that should count as charity.

The last round of such study that I looked at also ignored massive outliers like Gates Foundation/Buffet etc.

So - it is a myth that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

[Christof]

It‘s kind of typical for us from Europe that we talk about the future of Europe and end up - again - comparing our system to the US and mostly talking about the US. 😉

[ctuser1]

I was one of those American thread hijackers. Apologies for that.

Coming back to topic - I think the biggest problem facing Europe is the lack of growth drivers. In previous centuries, Europe has been the epicenter and beneficiary from Colonialism and industrial revolution.

That picture changed after WW2.

So, the default long-term future facing Europe is of stagnation, and demographics adds a massive amount of fuel to that issue.

This should be contrasted with the short and medium term future where Europe still provides very high standard of HDI to it's population.

To change this long term outlook:
1. Europe can suddenly become the epicenter of innovation and replace US in this regard. I am not sure it is feasible.
2. Start making a lots of babies. That's unlikely as well.
3. Allow a much higher degree of immigration - up to Canada/Australia levels. I think this is much more possible than most people think. Countries like UK are very immigrant friendly as far as their culture goes. *Even* the crazy BoJo is not anti-immigrant. Others have more of a nativist streak in them - but that is likely to wither away once the orange one is disposed of. At least I can hope that happens.

[Catica]

I was one of those American thread hijackers. Apologies for that.

Coming back to topic - I think the biggest problem facing Europe is the lack of growth drivers. In previous centuries, Europe has been the epicenter and beneficiary from Colonialism and industrial revolution.

That picture changed after WW2.

So, the default long-term future facing Europe is of stagnation, and demographics adds a massive amount of fuel to that issue.

This should be contrasted with the short and medium term future where Europe still provides very high standard of HDI to it's population.

To change this long term outlook:
1. Europe can suddenly become the epicenter of innovation and replace US in this regard. I am not sure it is feasible.
2. Start making a lots of babies. That's unlikely as well.
3. Allow a much higher degree of immigration - up to Canada/Australia levels. I think this is much more possible than most people think. Countries like UK are very immigrant friendly as far as their culture goes. *Even* the crazy BoJo is not anti-immigrant. Others have more of a nativist streak in them - but that is likely to wither away once the orange one is disposed of. At least I can hope that happens.

The "doom and gloom" of the past two decades of the Japanese economy, its stagnation, and Kuroda's massive quantitive easing don't have an alarming negative effect on the collective standard of living in Japan. If this approach can last, maybe the parameters for growth are not as important. The demographics in Japan are even direr than in Western Europe, and yet the overall satisfaction of Japanese society and the standard of living is pretty darn good. The problem in the US is that there is no societal cohesiveness, and there are no long term strategies for society at large. You seem to only focus on material wealth and its measures bringing the benefits to society as if that's the only conduit for a happy life. Obviously, that's philosophically subjective, but what the European posters are trying to steer your attention to is other attributes for measuring society's health, not just pure economic data. The US is so individualistic that the collective benefits are not really addressed.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I was one of those American thread hijackers. Apologies for that.

Coming back to topic - I think the biggest problem facing Europe is the lack of growth drivers. In previous centuries, Europe has been the epicenter and beneficiary from Colonialism and industrial revolution.

That picture changed after WW2.

So, the default long-term future facing Europe is of stagnation, and demographics adds a massive amount of fuel to that issue.

This should be contrasted with the short and medium term future where Europe still provides very high standard of HDI to it's population.

To change this long term outlook:
1. Europe can suddenly become the epicenter of innovation and replace US in this regard. I am not sure it is feasible.
2. Start making a lots of babies. That's unlikely as well.
3. Allow a much higher degree of immigration - up to Canada/Australia levels. I think this is much more possible than most people think. Countries like UK are very immigrant friendly as far as their culture goes. *Even* the crazy BoJo is not anti-immigrant. Others have more of a nativist streak in them - but that is likely to wither away once the orange one is disposed of. At least I can hope that happens.

Item 3. is a beggar thy neighbor strategy that isn’t going to be available for much longer. None of the countries of Europe, North America, or developed Asia have a Total Fertility Rate above replacement. And the TFR for the remainder of the world is dropping. There is only so much of a supply of educated young people who are willing to uproot and move.

I’ve always found it interesting that while we closely look at the immigration aspect of population movement, we don’t normally look at the emigration side of the equation. Such as the available supply, what emigrants leave behind, and how high emigration rates affect policies in the losing countries. Nor do those countries that are generally considered as desirable for immigrants seem to look much at emigration from their countries.

[pegleglolita]

For me, the appeal of Europe is more about how you live your everyday life and the things you place value on.  This blog post about America from blogger Alex Balashov (aimed at Armenians who want to emigrate) covers a lot of what many of us feel are the downsides of America that seem better done in Europe: https://likewise.am/2014/12/26/what-armenians-should-know-about-life-in-america/  Here's a taste for those who don't want to read the whole thing (highlights are mine): 

"Much of the rest of the world takes for granted architectural principles of how to build life-affirming human settlements. These principles evolved over thousands of years, and it’s no accident that so many cultures reached the same conclusions. Urban Europeans, and indeed Armenians, are accustomed to vertical growth, mixed-use development (shops on first floor, apartments above), sidewalks, plazas, public squares and street cafes. These are the fixtures amidst which your halcyon childhood days played out, where you walked hand in hand with your first love, where you met friends for coffee, and hopped the train to work. It’s the corner with the pastry shop, it’s the supermarket down the street, and the bench in between.

Few people can prepare themselves for the degree to which Americans have, in the last half-century or so, taken this entire corpus of human experience and thrown it completely into the trash, with the exception of a few older cities–not the places where the majority of Americans live. What has replaced it is a surreal moonscape. For those accustomed to the traditional urban civilisation, the primary question in America is: where do I go? What do I do? Looking around leads to an intangible but intense realisation of emptiness. Suburbia is both a cause and an effect of the destruction of civic and community life in America: there’s increasingly little to come home to, and vanishingly little to go out to. This has real effects. Your children will have nowhere to play, as there is no courtyard full of friends; they will depend on your willingness to drive them (sometimes quite far) for prearranged “play dates”. You will not take leisurely strolls to admire the scenery, for there is neither admirable scenery nor anywhere to stroll. It’s likely that you won’t even know your neighbours. You certainly can’t venture downstairs for lettuce or milk; strict zoning codes have ensured that only residential structures can be built where you live, and you’ll have to drive a few miles to reach the commercial zone, where the grocery stores are.

The architect James Howard Kunstler does a good job of anatomising the essential problems of suburbia in this TED talk. I don’t necessarily share all of his ideological accents, but I think he’s summed up the general problem very nicely. The thing you have to realise when watching that video is that he’s not talking about a particular kind of neighbourhood; he’s talking about the overwhelming majority of the US, including places others are accustomed to thinking of as cities. Dallas, for instance, is not a city by the global standards. Much of it should probably be reclassified as a rural area.

In this atmosphere, the almighty car–still a matter of social status, prestige and perceived convenience in Armenia–falls from grace. It’s no longer a luxurious way to thumb your nose at the teeming masses. You are one of the teeming masses. A lot of your energy and money and will go toward the purchase and upkeep of a rapidly depreciating hunk of metal in which you will spend a significant fraction of your life, all alone. It’s only cool when most people don’t have one; when four wheels have replaced two feet, it’s just a needlessly expensive way to traverse pointlessly large distances of identical-looking road for unclear reasons.

It should go without saying that public transportation doesn’t exist in the US–at least, not by European standards. Unless you live in New York City, or well within the centres of Chicago or one or two other cities, you’ll need a car, and you’ll be spending a lot of time in it. Guaranteed.

For a culture as warm and sociable as that of Armenians, this is all anathema. Truly committed people can maintain friendships and connections across the most hostile landscapes, but so much of how we meet and relate to others is inextricably bound up in the convenience and opportunity in how we are situated. Physical layout cannot, by itself, either make one friends or hinder those who are determined to have them anyway. But it does matter. A lot.

Therefore, I’m moved to say that one of the most important things about the US is that it’s lonely. They built it that way."

[Buffaloski Boris]

@pegleglolita - that was an excellent article. Well worth the read. Thanks for posting it.

[Kris]

For me, the appeal of Europe is more about how you live your everyday life and the things you place value on.  This blog post about America from blogger Alex Balashov (aimed at Armenians who want to emigrate) covers a lot of what many of us feel are the downsides of America that seem better done in Europe: https://likewise.am/2014/12/26/what-armenians-should-know-about-life-in-america/  Here's a taste for those who don't want to read the whole thing (highlights are mine): 

"Much of the rest of the world takes for granted architectural principles of how to build life-affirming human settlements. These principles evolved over thousands of years, and it’s no accident that so many cultures reached the same conclusions. Urban Europeans, and indeed Armenians, are accustomed to vertical growth, mixed-use development (shops on first floor, apartments above), sidewalks, plazas, public squares and street cafes. These are the fixtures amidst which your halcyon childhood days played out, where you walked hand in hand with your first love, where you met friends for coffee, and hopped the train to work. It’s the corner with the pastry shop, it’s the supermarket down the street, and the bench in between.

Few people can prepare themselves for the degree to which Americans have, in the last half-century or so, taken this entire corpus of human experience and thrown it completely into the trash, with the exception of a few older cities–not the places where the majority of Americans live. What has replaced it is a surreal moonscape. For those accustomed to the traditional urban civilisation, the primary question in America is: where do I go? What do I do? Looking around leads to an intangible but intense realisation of emptiness. Suburbia is both a cause and an effect of the destruction of civic and community life in America: there’s increasingly little to come home to, and vanishingly little to go out to. This has real effects. Your children will have nowhere to play, as there is no courtyard full of friends; they will depend on your willingness to drive them (sometimes quite far) for prearranged “play dates”. You will not take leisurely strolls to admire the scenery, for there is neither admirable scenery nor anywhere to stroll. It’s likely that you won’t even know your neighbours. You certainly can’t venture downstairs for lettuce or milk; strict zoning codes have ensured that only residential structures can be built where you live, and you’ll have to drive a few miles to reach the commercial zone, where the grocery stores are.

The architect James Howard Kunstler does a good job of anatomising the essential problems of suburbia in this TED talk. I don’t necessarily share all of his ideological accents, but I think he’s summed up the general problem very nicely. The thing you have to realise when watching that video is that he’s not talking about a particular kind of neighbourhood; he’s talking about the overwhelming majority of the US, including places others are accustomed to thinking of as cities. Dallas, for instance, is not a city by the global standards. Much of it should probably be reclassified as a rural area.

In this atmosphere, the almighty car–still a matter of social status, prestige and perceived convenience in Armenia–falls from grace. It’s no longer a luxurious way to thumb your nose at the teeming masses. You are one of the teeming masses. A lot of your energy and money and will go toward the purchase and upkeep of a rapidly depreciating hunk of metal in which you will spend a significant fraction of your life, all alone. It’s only cool when most people don’t have one; when four wheels have replaced two feet, it’s just a needlessly expensive way to traverse pointlessly large distances of identical-looking road for unclear reasons.

It should go without saying that public transportation doesn’t exist in the US–at least, not by European standards. Unless you live in New York City, or well within the centres of Chicago or one or two other cities, you’ll need a car, and you’ll be spending a lot of time in it. Guaranteed.

For a culture as warm and sociable as that of Armenians, this is all anathema. Truly committed people can maintain friendships and connections across the most hostile landscapes, but so much of how we meet and relate to others is inextricably bound up in the convenience and opportunity in how we are situated. Physical layout cannot, by itself, either make one friends or hinder those who are determined to have them anyway. But it does matter. A lot.

Therefore, I’m moved to say that one of the most important things about the US is that it’s lonely. They built it that way."

Completely agree. We live in an area of our Midwestern city that is relatively less awful in this way... and yet, whenever I travel to other countries, particularly in Europe, I am once again struck by the gawping hollowness of American infrastructure. It really is quite remarkable. And depressing.

[Bloop Bloop]

That article doesn't line up with my lived experience of the U.S., though I was fortunate to live in a blue state, in one of the top 5 educational districts in the whole country.

Where my school was located was a bit soul-less, but generally convenient, with really good road infrastructure but also a good subway.

Where I lived was a beautiful suburb with a mix of high-density apartments (for poorer people like me) and wonderful, very expensive, houses. There were public parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, leafy streets, lots of overhanging trees and spring flowers and altogether it was lovely.

There are wonderful places in the U.S. to live.

There are similarly wonderful places in Europe and Australia, of course. The difference is that you're gonna be earning a lot less and paying a lot more tax in Europe and Australia. The advantage though is that you can put in basically 0 effort and still earn $100k a year here because the 'average Joe' does so well and society is so easy and standards are pretty mediocre. Whereas in the U.S., if you put in 0 effort you're going to get fired and fall behind. The rat race is a real thing.

That's my experience of having lived and studied/worked in various countries.

[Kris]

That article doesn't line up with my lived experience of the U.S., though I was fortunate to live in a blue state, in one of the top 5 educational districts in the whole country.

Where my school was located was a bit soul-less, but generally convenient, with really good road infrastructure but also a good subway.

Where I lived was a beautiful suburb with a mix of high-density apartments (for poorer people like me) and wonderful, very expensive, houses. There were public parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, leafy streets, lots of overhanging trees and spring flowers and altogether it was lovely.

There are wonderful places in the U.S. to live.

There are similarly wonderful places in Europe and Australia, of course. The difference is that you're gonna be earning a lot less and paying a lot more tax in Europe and Australia. The advantage though is that you can put in basically 0 effort and still earn $100k a year here because the 'average Joe' does so well and society is so easy and standards are pretty mediocre. Whereas in the U.S., if you put in 0 effort you're going to get fired and fall behind. The rat race is a real thing.

That's my experience of having lived and studied/worked in various countries.

You clearly lived in one of the good places in the US. Of course they exist. And many of them are where universities are. And primarily in the east. In blue states.

[scottish]

Interesting blog post.   

Do you folks in the US think it's true?    Are your taxes are almost as high as us left wing socialists in Canada and Europe?  And you also have to pay for health care, education, day care, etc. that we have partially or fully covered by our socialist programs?     Where the hell does all the tax revenue go?    I think we're kind of wasteful with government spending, but at least our services exist...

And what about the justice system?    Do judges in the US really focus on the process and ignore the intent of the law?     You guys actually elect your government attorneys and judges instead of having them appointed based on their reputation and career performance?     And what about verdicts being punishment instead of rehabilitation?    Is the US view that criminals should be punished and spend their lives in (and occasionally out of) jail, instead of being rehabilitated so that they can do something useful with themselves?

I never realized just how bizarre US society is by Canadian standards.   I thought the differences were just health care and firearms...   but it sounds like suburbia is the thing we share the most.

[Bloop Bloop]

Interesting blog post.   

And what about the justice system?    Do judges in the US really focus on the process and ignore the intent of the law?     You guys actually elect your government attorneys and judges instead of having them appointed based on their reputation and career performance?     And what about verdicts being punishment instead of rehabilitation?    Is the US view that criminals should be punished and spend their lives in (and occasionally out of) jail, instead of being rehabilitated so that they can do something useful with themselves?

I never realized just how bizarre US society is by Canadian standards.   I thought the differences were just health care and firearms...   but it sounds like suburbia is the thing we share the most.

In the US their society is run on a punishment/reward system. Like operant conditioning. There's a lot of Puritan work ethic mixed into it.

Here in Australia we're a bunch of slackers. Anyone who tries too hard, or is too successful in any field (other than sports which is okay), is seen as a "try hard", someone to be gently mocked. In the US, I found that nearly everyone had to 'try hard'. It's part of the culture. If you don't try hard you're not worthy and you're liable to punishment.

While I don't entirely embrace the US view of meritocracy - not least because of the structural inequalities in society, and also because of the issues with people falling through the cracks - I also can't embrace the opposite view that dominates here in Australia, land of the underdog. Here it seems that if you're underprivileged people will pull out every stop to try to justify why you are in your position and to undermine the role of individual choice. It ends up being potentially fatalistic and disempowering. It's also disingenuous. Here in my state we assign high school students a university entry score that everyone states is a percentile ranking...but it's not. A score of 69 corresponds to a percentile of 50, lol. But you have to dig incredibly deep in to the raw figures to discover this. It's a little too much coddling, if you ask me.

[ctuser1]

Do you folks in the US think it's true?    Are your taxes are almost as high as us left wing socialists in Canada and Europe?  And you also have to pay for health care, education, day care, etc. that we have partially or fully covered by our socialist programs?     Where the hell does all the tax revenue go?    I think we're kind of wasteful with government spending, but at least our services exist...

The writer's reference is California.

California has some of the most generous social programs in the US, of any state. It also subsidizes many red states, e.g. Alabama or Kentucky that generally look to the Federal government to pay for running their states.

Think of it as the EU where Germany actually paid to run Greece.

If it sounds unfair - it's not totally so. Economies that generate a surplus (e.g. Germany/California) need to recycle the surplus, and there comes the deficit generating economies (e.g. Greece/Kentucky/Alabama). If this natural economic flow is not allowed to happen - that causes bad things, like you see building up in EU from time to time.

------------

I had once compared my tax numbers to a generic Canadian in Toronto (long time ago, things may have changed). My conclusion: Nominal tax burden is lower in CT compared to a Toronto resident, but you get free healthcare there which would put the total Tax + healthcare cost a lot higher in the US. For reference, CT tax burden is  lower than CA, or NYC.

US government is not particularly inefficient in terms of spending. Indeed in many areas it is quite efficient compared to others. The extra $$ costs are due to bloated healthcare costs in general + military.

For the poor in the red states, life is undoubtedly harder than Canada/EU. For professionals, the significantly higher salaries smooth over all these issues and then a lot more.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Interesting blog post.   

Do you folks in the US think it's true?    Are your taxes are almost as high as us left wing socialists in Canada and Europe? 

On balance I think we pay less, but it's not a huge difference and depending on the state it can work out to be about the same.  I looked up the tax rates in Canada and for Federal income taxes, it's kind of hard to compare.  Looks to me like folks in the middle class pay a bit less in Canada, and folks who are quite wealthy pay a bit more.  Provincial income taxes look significantly higher; some US states don't have an income tax at all.  Canadian property taxes are significantly lower.  The US doesn't have a VAT, our states have sales taxes, but the rates in the US appear lower overall.  The Canadian equivalent of social security taxes look significantly lower.  The thing that is very hard to compare are the various nuisance taxes and fees that nickel and dime Americans to death, particularly in the vaunted blue cities and states. Which happen to suck.   

And you also have to pay for health care, education, day care, etc. that we have partially or fully covered by our socialist programs?     

Yup. 

Where the hell does all the tax revenue go?    I think we're kind of wasteful with government spending, but at least our services exist...

Now that's the question, isn't it?  Our expenditures for national defense are higher than most countries.  Also, we spend a lot on servicing debt.   Transfer payments for social security are quite high and we do spend a bit subsidizing the lowest income levels in society, but neither effectively nor efficiently. 

And what about the justice system?    Do judges in the US really focus on the process and ignore the intent of the law? 

I don't think judges ignore the intent of the law, but it is a very process based system and in some cases can be very perverse in it's outcomes. Such as de facto debtors prisons, or jury trials being used as a threat to induce plea bargains. It's also a revenue generation system.  Fines for minor infractions are a large part of local budgets, and most police are really more in the tax revenue business than resolving major crime. Asset seizures are a driving force behind a lot of our drug laws. And of course incarceration is a major industry.

You guys actually elect your government attorneys and judges instead of having them appointed based on their reputation and career performance?

Federal judges are appointed.  For state and local judges, it depends on the state. Many areas appoint judges, but I don't think it much matters in the end.  Judges in the US are really more in the role of referees.  And the vast bulk of criminal charges are resolved through plea bargaining, not trials.   

And what about verdicts being punishment instead of rehabilitation?    Is the US view that criminals should be punished and spend their lives in (and occasionally out of) jail, instead of being rehabilitated so that they can do something useful with themselves?

That pretty much sums it up.  Prisons are a major industry in the US and are often the only significant employer in small towns. There is little if any incentive to rehabilitate, although I think the consensus is shifting on this.

I never realized just how bizarre US society is by Canadian standards.   I thought the differences were just health care and firearms...   but it sounds like suburbia is the thing we share the most.

American culture is quite different from Canadian. Some aspects better and some worse.  We're dwelling on the negative here, but there are a lot of positive things about American culture as well. Lots of economic opportunity, and the people are generally nice if somewhat odd. The cost of living in the US can be very low if you're savvy.  Housing is cheaper in most areas of the US than it is in Canada. The rule of thumb that I think you can use in the US is that if it's anything that involves politicians, it's usually crap.       

[PDXTabs]

Interesting blog post.   

Do you folks in the US think it's true?    Are your taxes are almost as high as us left wing socialists in Canada and Europe? 

On balance I think we pay less, but it's not a huge difference and depending on the state it can work out to be about the same.

Yup, if you compare taxes in Oregon, USA to Scotland, UK and then look at the services you get with those taxes I'm pretty sure that most people would be better off in Scotland due to the high income taxes in Oregon and good services (including University) in Scotland.

But taxes in the UK are lower than say France, Portugal, Denmark, etc.

[PDXTabs]

And what about the justice system?    Do judges in the US really focus on the process and ignore the intent of the law?     You guys actually elect your government attorneys and judges instead of having them appointed based on their reputation and career performance?     And what about verdicts being punishment instead of rehabilitation?    Is the US view that criminals should be punished and spend their lives in (and occasionally out of) jail, instead of being rehabilitated so that they can do something useful with themselves?

This varies state to state, but yes. Just look at California's three strikes law and the school to prison pipeline. Remember, private prisons are legal and they are allowed to put the prisoners to work on profitable contracts.

EDITed to add - I'm a white person in a mixed and blended extended family. My kids are white, but if I had black or mixed race kids I'd much rather raise them in the UK (or elsewhere in Europe) than the USA.

I never realized just how bizarre US society is by Canadian standards.   I thought the differences were just health care and firearms...   but it sounds like suburbia is the thing we share the most.

I like visiting Canada (I have good friends in Nanaimo and Vancouver) but I'm reluctant to move there (except maybe to Montreal) because of all the suburbs. Specifically, cars are expensive there (by US standards) and public transit is weak. That, combined with your cheese embargo, means that I think that I would rather be in Europe.

[scottish]

Yeah, if you like the urban lifestyle Canada is a bit limited.    Vancouver has some nice urban areas but they're really expensive.   I've never liked Toronto very much, and I rarely go to Montreal.    Calgary is pretty much the definition of suburban sprawl and Ottawa is pretty boring.  We used to say the streets roll up at 6:00 PM when all the government workers go home!

If you like the outdoors, it's another story.   We cover pretty much the whole range of outdoor activities, although the climate is temperate rather than tropical.

Cheese?   We've got what ever kind of cheese you want, as long as its cheddar!

[ctuser1]

I was one of those American thread hijackers. Apologies for that.

Coming back to topic - I think the biggest problem facing Europe is the lack of growth drivers. In previous centuries, Europe has been the epicenter and beneficiary from Colonialism and industrial revolution.

That picture changed after WW2.

So, the default long-term future facing Europe is of stagnation, and demographics adds a massive amount of fuel to that issue.

This should be contrasted with the short and medium term future where Europe still provides very high standard of HDI to it's population.

To change this long term outlook:
1. Europe can suddenly become the epicenter of innovation and replace US in this regard. I am not sure it is feasible.
2. Start making a lots of babies. That's unlikely as well.
3. Allow a much higher degree of immigration - up to Canada/Australia levels. I think this is much more possible than most people think. Countries like UK are very immigrant friendly as far as their culture goes. *Even* the crazy BoJo is not anti-immigrant. Others have more of a nativist streak in them - but that is likely to wither away once the orange one is disposed of. At least I can hope that happens.

Item 3. is a beggar thy neighbor strategy that isn’t going to be available for much longer. None of the countries of Europe, North America, or developed Asia have a Total Fertility Rate above replacement. And the TFR for the remainder of the world is dropping. There is only so much of a supply of educated young people who are willing to uproot and move.

I’ve always found it interesting that while we closely look at the immigration aspect of population movement, we don’t normally look at the emigration side of the equation. Such as the available supply, what emigrants leave behind, and how high emigration rates affect policies in the losing countries. Nor do those countries that are generally considered as desirable for immigrants seem to look much at emigration from their countries.

If you drop the "educated" part of the criteria, climate change will keep this racket going for at least the next 100 years:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/

It has already started, and affecting countries that had least contributed to it. The affected population also skew young, albeit not very educated/skilled.

To fuel economic growth, you probably need more lettuce pickers than code monkeys. These countries can supply lettuce pickers in abundance.

As to the code monkeys, yeah that stock will run out faster! Indeed, it is already very difficult to hire competent code monkeys (I know from experience) - so that would be nothing new.

[PDXTabs]

Vancouver has some nice urban areas but they're really expensive.

Yup, Vancouver is great but if you look at the cost of living vs the salaries it doesn't make any sense. If I could keep my USA salary I could afford to live there, but the salaries are way lower for software in Canada.

Cheese?   We've got what ever kind of cheese you want, as long as its cheddar!

Canadian tariffs on cheese are incredibly high. I always hand carry as much cheese from the USA into Canada whenever I visit. European cheeses in the USA are way cheaper than in Canada. https://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/prod/agri/dairy-laitiers/notices-avis/909.aspx