Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Place To Relocate?

New submitter tsakas writes: "I am an IT researcher from southern Europe looking for a good place to relocate. Markets are pulling the teeth out of the strong European countries by destroying the south. The U.S. is in debt and there is no way of telling how long this can go on. China and India are on the rise. Brazil and Australia are looking good. The question: Which city would you choose to go and start a family if you were to stay there for a) 5, b) 10 and c) 20 years?"

Comments

Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth is screwed

Re:Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I'm not saying Earth is all that, but post-industrial Mars is a wasteland. Until they get the manufacturing sector working again, you're better off at home.

Re:Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it's cold as hell.

Re:Mars

[PRMan]

No way. I heard there's only one computer on the whole planet and it's like a 386. Plus the latency will be murder on your games...

Re:Mars

[dgatwood]

Can you imagine the seven-month journey with your kids, and the whole time they're screaming, "Are we there yet?"

No, and if you don't quit your whining, I'm going to turn this spaceship around.

Re:Mars

[aristotle-dude]

Mars have crappy latency and bandwidth, and that is IF you can find a working rover and hack your signal in... Have you taught about Canada? Montreal is big in IT stuff and life is great there.

You taught you taw a putty cat?

Re:Mars

[gagol]

Thank for pointing out, non native engrish speaker here ;-)

Re:Mars

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

Actually, raising your kids on Mars is 2.66 times easier than on Earth.

Re:Mars

[nschubach]

Oh, you have room, but the TSA won't let you take more than a few ounces.

Re:Mars

[Master Moose]

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

In fact, it's cold as hell.

And there's no one there to raise them if you did

Re:Mars

[Tarlus]

If you can be high as a kite till then, it shouldn't be too bad.

Re:Mars

[dgatwood]

Either way, going to Mars would be a trip, but... I think it's gonna be a long, long time.

Kansas

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Fiber

Re:Kansas

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Fiber

Kansas CITY.

Three quarters of which are in Missouri.

Re:Kansas

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

Three quarters of which are in Missouri.

I used to live in a state where westborough was east of eastboro, southboro was also to the east of westboro. There was no northborough or borough or central borough to be found anywhere.

US

[keltor]

The US - still the best place to live and the whole "debt" issue is really not a huge deal.

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, they are simply going to print more money. no problem involved...they are doing it from a long time now...

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. no. If you are going to North America, go to Canada. Specifically Western Canada. Crime is very very low compared to the US, the economy is very strong compared to everywhere else in the world, and we don't expect you to shed your culture.

Re:US

[jhoegl]

Politically motivated "Ask Slashdot" is politically motivated.
FYI, signs of China's economy slowing down since last year.
Also FYI, be good at what you do and no financial crisis can hurt you.

Re:US

[spire3661]

Sounds like someone who has never set foot inside the U.S. Our civil War settled this issue long ago, there is no getting out of the Union. If anything you will see solidarity and calls for war if our creditors decide to get uppity.

Re:US

[JackieBrown]

Come to San Antonio and see which culture is being shedded

Re:US

[metrometro]

The US's major creditor is also its biggest trading partner. China can't wreck the US economy without destroying their own. And if you think the US needs Chinese stuff, China needs US markets more. The debt is not a big deal other than as a political flamebait; if it was, institutional money wouldn't still be using dollars as a reserve currency and running up US equity markets.

Re:US

[Jeng]

Also FYI, be good at what you do and no financial crisis can hurt you.

History tells a different story.

Being good at what you do alone will not insulate you from financial crisis's, you also have to make good business decisions.

Re:US

[clarkkent09]

Choose US if you are ambitious and good at what you do. There is no country on Earth that will offer you the same opportunity to succeed and the same liberty to pursue your goals without excessive interference from the government, while at the same time offering strong rule of law and minimum corruption. Ignore the impression you might have from Hollywood movies. Apart from some inner city ghettos, the quality of life in the US is amazing. Chose Canada or Scandinavia if you are insecure about your ability to maintain employment, have no ambition to start a business and need the reassurance of a strong safety net. China and India are still third world countries with extreme poverty and an enormous amount of corruption. Australia may be a good middle ground between the collectivist nanny states of Europe or Canada, with zero energy and innovation, and the US. Also, as far as I know, the immigration policy is relatively welcoming (like in Canada) compared to the US and Europe.

Re:US

[cayenne8]

yes, they are simply going to print more money. no problem involved...they are doing it from a long time now...

But still...so far, we're still doing better than much of the EU which is going down the tubes...

And I can't imagine wanting to live in India or China...from the images I've seen of the general living conditions in each of those countries, I don't think I'd care to live there!! If nothing else, recent articles about India's problems with energy infrastructure.

I kinda go back to an old saying I hears..."...sure the US sucks, but it sucks a whole lot less than it sucks everywhere else in the world.

I'm quite pessimistic these days about the US economy...the printing of money and all as you've alluded to, but hell...I can't imagine it will be a lot better anywhere else in the world at the point in time.

I'm worried about the current administrations spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave....I hope it gets better next year, but I'm not sure of that. It would likely take a bunch of the politicians that cared about the US...to get in there, and not worry about re-election, and vote and do what has to be done.

Those steps would be unpopular with many, but to save the US economy in the long run, we're gonna have to cut a LOT of spending, and a lot of that is social programs, there's just no two ways about it. Medicare will likely go bankrupt in the near future if nothing is done.

And likely any thing seriously done to fix it...will not get you re-elected, but man...someone....actually a large group of folks need to get into office by whatever means....and sacrifice their political careers and fix things.

But, even with that diatribe....I can't see it being any better outside the US. Quality of life and all is still great here, better than what I've seen when I've been outside the country.

Re:US

[jackjumper]

Right now 10 year treasury bonds are selling at rates that mean investors *lose* money, accounting for inflation. Tell me again how our debt makes us in trouble?

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

The US's major creditor is itself. Foreign investment accounts for only 32% of US debt. China just happens to be the largest single foreign owner, but their ownership of total US debt is only about $1.2 Trillion or about 11% of total debt.

You are correct though, China's economy is very dependent upon the US and they do not have enough control, power, influence, etc, to crash the US economy.

Re:US

[jackjumper]

Um, no. China isn't the largest holder of U.S. debt.

Re:US

[mooingyak]

1. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

That sounds like a cure that's worse than the disease. Unless there's a very careful plan to phase that in gradually, that'll produce a fat pile of foreclosures.

Re:US

[m.ducharme]

Er, there's a rather large country with lots of open spaces right next door, that someone might consider as a viable option to the US or Europe. You know, Canada, that place where we've weathered the downturn better, are on track (in 2-3 years or so, unless Europe implodes) to eliminate the temporary deficits we ran up to keep our heads above water during the financial crisis and go back to running surpluses, have universal, single payor health care (at half the price per capita of US health care), similar standard of living, stable democracy, and politicians who are saner than the US ones, even if I don't like anything our current government is doing.

Just sayin'.

(We've got our own problems here, no question, but we're in better shape than the US, for the foreseeable future)

Re:US

[cpu6502]

Canada? In the west? No. The U.S. is still being used as the world's currency for trading the world's fuel: Oil. It has a massive debt but that debt is being propped-up by everyone else, so we still have many good years left.

I would locate to the Northeast along the I-95 corridor since there are tons & tons of jobs there. Also lots of cities so you'll never get bored. (And you can get Free TV because those same cities broadcast free entertainment on almost every channel (6 to 51).) The northeast also has cheap internet. I pay $15 a month for DSL, or have the option to pay $50 a month for highspeed FiOS or cable.

Re:US

[jellomizer]

US Bond Rates (US Debt) is currently under inflation. Really that means countries are buying US dollars at a loss to them. In a global recession like this, the whole world is screwed. The US is strong enough to endure this. The idea of China is going to cash in all at once is ludicrous because if the US economy is killed so is China's.

What people don't seem to realize, we are in a global recession, during these recessions most of the normal rules of economics are messed up.

Recession isn't a lack of money but the lack of moving it around. So...
1. The Rich will hoard all their money they make. They will not start investing it out (trickle down) until the economy improves, right now many investments are too risky so they will hold on to their profits, vs using it towards growth.

2. Putting money in Low Yield but Safe investments. (High US debt,) US Bonds are the safest place to put your money... Yes at the rates you will loose money, but you will loose it at a slower rate then other investments.

3. Increased Crime, People who do not have an income will get what they want at any costs, also the rich who do have what they want will try every trick in the book to prevent too much loss. So more crime happens and the victims (sometimes poor, sometime rich) loose what is theirs, thus making life harder for them.

4. Radical Political Stance. Things have gone wrong. the guys in charge seem to be moderates and doing too little too slowly. Lets try to get someone who will make the trains run on time, and punish the opposition who possibly caused the problem in the first time.

5. Less funding on infrastructure. Things go in disrepair and we cannot benefit as much from it.

What happened with this recession (A very basic explanation/my opinion) is that it was building up for a long time (I would say from the mid 90's) Because between the mid-late 90's-mid 2000's we had a decade of bubbles (false economic success) First we had the y2k fix/internet tech bubble, we had a need to upgrade or redo our infrastructure to handle Y2K, being that a lot of it is just get new stuff, we started to take advantage of the new stuff (Aka Internet) so we had a bubble there, with young kids with Economy 2.0 and sell at a loss and make it up by selling a lot of it. After 2001/2 the infrastructure had been upgraded, and the stupid business models couldn't hold on for that long. So the Tech bubble popped. But at the same time, of the tech bubble popped we got the housing bubble. Like the tech bubble, we got a lot of bad (illegal) business ideas accepted by well known companies. Democrats and Republicans didn't do much to stop it, because citizens are getting the American dream of their own home, and the growth seemed endless. We saw signs of trouble but were ignorant of it because the bubble was keeping us going. After the housing bubble popped, we didn't have a strong bubble to go onto the next step. Thus a Huge recession.

It is a perfect storm that causes a downward spiral, that feeds itself. Unfortunately the only thing that will really fix it, is time. At some point there will some new invention or idea that will spur more innovation. The rich will want to expand again, and things will improve. Having this recovery be slow, although it is very painful for a lot of people, is probably a good thing over all. We are building strong fundamentals (which Bush was incorrect when he said that) again, our core values are returning, get rich quick isn't the mantra anymore. So things will slowly get better.

The United States has actually weathered the recession over all a lot better then most other countries.

Re:US

[m.ducharme]

And not start from the bottom of the pile in the first place.

Re:US

[cpu6502]

>>>we're gonna have to cut a LOT of spending, and a lot of that is social programs

You just have to sell it properly. I don't think anyone would complain if you changed them to needs-based programs like welfare and food stamps. And advertised it as: "No more medicare or social security for the rich!" I think there's near-universal agreement that the rich & well-off should not be receiving government assistance. They can live off their own personal savings.

Re:US

[thetoadwarrior]

It is a huge deal but combine that with the corruption, lack of public healthcare, complete lack of privacy, and growing religious extremism, I'd say the US needs to get itself back on track before considering it.

Re:US

[YttriumOxide]

Of course if money is your primary choice, I would suggest Australia.

As someone who thought the same a few years back, I'd highly discourage this as a course of action. In Australia, I made far more money than in my native New Zealand, but it was all eaten up with the ridiculous cost of living. Sure, some places might be cheaper than Sydney, but good luck finding a well paying job outside of Sydney (if you do, grab it - it probably WILL be worth it).

Since moving to Hannover, Germany, my pay stayed around the same or increased slightly and my cost of living went down by more than 50%. I feel significantly better off here than I ever did in Sydney.

Re:US

[EvilBudMan]

Yeah and it's getting warmer there. So you don't have to worry about that.

Re:US

[rock_climbing_guy]

I've lived in San Antonio for about two years now. I enjoy a good IT job with the military (big military presence here). The only fly in the ointment is the long, brutally hot summers we've had the last few years. (Much hotter than average)

Re:US

[PhamNguyen]

You don't understand the definition of "insolvent". US GDP is approx $15 Trillion. The total output of the US economy in 1 year would be sufficient to pay back all Federal debt. This is like having in income of $80,000 a year and owing $85,000 dollars. Insolvency would be more like if federal debt was 10x GDP.

Re:US

[Sir_Sri]

The US - still the best place to live

That's simply not true. The best places to live are canada, australia or northern europe.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities or http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-worlds-15-best-places-to-live/ etc.

For a southern european the best (and by far easiest) bet is simply northern europe, including germany, but preferably somewhere not in the euro zone. Even somewhere that is indexed to the euro, but not on the euro.

The US can be lucrative if you're in IT. But it has unnecessarily long work hours, bad health care, and a persistent civil rights and racism problem that aren't worth dealing with if you can avoid it. Not that europe doesn't have racism problems too, but they're different than in the US, so why deal with the US problem at all? If you go to the US and have kids you have to worry about the education they'll get, how you'll pay for post secondary etc. In a civilized country those are problems, but at 1/10th the magnitude, so why would you deal with it? Healthcare is the same sort of problem. If you're going to the US you may as well talk about brazil, russia, china, there are all very lucrative opportunities but you can also end up really screwed if the police or government or just some random local asshole decides they want rid of you.

If you're seriously worried about politics then the US and UK in particular are bad places to be. Both have political parties (the conservatives in the UK and the Republicans in the US) pushing thoroughly discredited economic policies on their own country, and that again, is just not worth dealing with. It's not that their problems aren't solvable, it's that the people in charge are deliberately not solving them. Germany is in the same boat, but their discredited policies are fucking over the rest of europe, rather than themselves.

Failing a european solution, which from an immigration perspective is by far the easiest, your second choice is probably canada. Australia is probably more lucrative, and you don't have to worry about being dragged down by the americans the way we do in canada, or buried in our own internal political stupidity (the french separatists in quebec, the Alberta-ontario split on oil vs manufacturing etc.) but canada is much closer to europe physically, which makes going home a lot less painful.

Then it's a matter of immigration. I'm not 100% sure on australia, but I would think they have the same thing as everywhere else, if you have paper IT skills it's easier to get immigration, at which point any of canada, australia, new zealand all work reasonably well.

The problem is the questioner is an "IT Researcher". It's hard to know what exactly that means. Is that a PhD in some IT field looking for a faculty position? Then basically anywhere you can find a job is the right answer, because faculty positions are decent everywhere. If you're looking for private sector research that's much harder, because it depends what you can do exactly.

It's not that there aren't great opportunities in second and 3rd world countries, there are, but if you don't know your way around the local system it's very hard to capitalize on those without a lot of money to start with. If you're just looking for a job to settle your life down with, then go somewhere with a high per capita income, decent vacation time, decent education and decent healthcare (on which the US gets 1/4, canada australia 3/4 and northern europe 4/4).

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment is much lower in Alberta and BC than Oregon and Washington. (Roughly 6% vs roughly 8%)

The Canadian dollar is stronger than the US dollar. (Roughly $1.02 right now)

British Columbia household debt is lower, Canadian federal debt is lower (even as a share of GDP), Canadian economic forecasts are stronger for the 5-year time horizon. Canadians pay LOWER taxes than someone living in a higher-tax state (like California), yet this pays for health care and more generous unemployment benefits if you are not employed.

Other than the money being green and the patriotitism being frothy, what is better exactly? Specifics, please.

Disclaimer: I've lived extensively in both countries, in Ontario, BC and Alberta as well as California, Washington, Missouri and Texas. I strongly prefer Canadian culture and it's great now that the economy is ALSO better. :-)

Re:US

[Jerry]

The question is, where is the best state to live in the US when the break up occurs.

It's obvious. The state with the greatest amount of natural resources: oil, metals, wood, rich soil, wildlife, and a low population.
Southern Alaska, close to the Pacific Ocean.
That it has a large supply of military weapons, including nukes, is a side benefit. It's big enough to be a nation on its own, and enough power to ward off potential invaders.

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. I disagree, as someone who left the US and moved to Canada to start a business.

The process is actually exactly as easy here, overall, my taxes are comparable- maybe slightly lower (Washington vs Alberta), and the crime rate in this city is substantially lower, despite it being a very close approximation of the same place in the US (Seattle vs Calgary).

Canada's economy has a stronger growth outlook for the 5 year horizon than the US, the dollar is stronger than the greenback (though that's bad if you're exporting) and the housing market has been much more stable. Plus, I don't have to shell out $900 per month per employee for health coverage. I'm not sure I could afford to do that, I'd probably just go without... And that sucks, but it's the price of being an entrepreneur in the US, and that's pretty fuckin' lame if you ask me.

If you look at studies, the US has a lower economic mobility and a higher prevalance of "social class" being an indicator of future success than almost any country in the world (it rivals Russia in this way).

Having seriously lived in both places and having moved to Canada to start a business, I'm going to tell you that you have been fed a line of patriotic froth and while you're free to blather on with your opinion, it's pretty funny to watch from here.

Re:US

[SirGarlon]

The northeast also has cheap internet.

Yes, but along that I-95 corridor, property values are exorbitantly high, and the cheap internet does not really offset the rent / mortgage+taxes. Not to say living here is all bad -- just that, in the grand scheme of things, "cheap internet" is not really a major consideration.

Re:US

[Sir_Sri]

It is a huge Deal!

No, really, it's not. Saying it's a huge deal doesn't make it a huge deal.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=yield

Your debt is at negative interest rates for anything past 10 year notes. 16 trillion dollars is spread across 330 million people.

What matters isn't how much debt you have. That sounds strange, but hear me out. If you owed me 1 million dollars but I was charging you 1% interest a year (10k/year) you could probably manage. If you owed me 100k at 10% interest a year the net cost is the same. So then the issue with the US is whether or not your interest rates are going to magically spike (which despite all the predictions they haven't), and if they do whether or not you can still pay the debt off. Which you can.

The US debt problem is *entirely* an artificial political construction. Right now you should be borrowing several hundred billion dollars a year more to fund job creation (in this case in particular probably infrastructure rebuilding) so you can get the economy back to growing. Paying people unemployment when you could pay them to do work is simply stupid. Leaving people unemployed when there is work that needs to be done and you can borrow money at negative interest rates to pay them to do it is willful damage to the economy.

The way out of any debt problem for a government once the economy picks back up (which is different from a person) is to manage the money supply to keep interest rates low relative to nominal GDP growth (nominal GDP grows with inflation, productivity and population), and then make sure you have sensible tax revenue, especially when the economy is doing well. The US has a nominal GDP growth rate of 5% a year over the last 60 or so years (and remember the government can tweak that number itself with inflation and immigration), so even running a 4% of GDP deficit (which right now would be about 640 billion dollars) is still shrinking the relative size of the debt, which is all that matters.

Re:US

[jackjumper]

Yes! Which is why when you hear stuff like "Social security is just pieces of paper", remember those pieces of paper represent money *we* lent to the government, much of which was then given to rich people for tax cuts who don't want to pay it back.

Re:US

[DrLang21]

The interesting thing about this is that the largest chunk of our debt comes from the Fed inventing more money and causing inflation. The amusing/sad thing about that is that to pay it off would cause mass deflation, which is almost as bad. Really we should just write off the debt to the Fed since it's all bogus anyways and leave it as a permanent increase in the money supply.

Re:US

[aristotle-dude]

Nah, the Canuks are shitting the bed as fast as the other western nations. They just have further to fall, so they look better right now.

They've let a bunch of ultra-conservative wingnuts get hold that are trying their damn hardest to turn the place in to the 52nd state. If you want to see Canada in 10 years, see Australia.

Let me guess, you are either a teenaged Canadian who never lived under an NDP government and you get your news from American liberal media or you are an American Obama supporter who is completely clueless about Canadian politics.

The Canadian conservative party is "fiscally" conservative. Our prime minister is a boring economist with a masters degree and that is the way we like it. Americans have no clue what the conservative party stands for. Our economy is still doing better than the American and European countries and our Canadian dollar is currently on cent above the US dollar.

Re:US

[mcmonkey]

How?

You are already paying the interest, the only difference is you will get a smaller refund or owe a little more tax.

If you need that to make your mortgage you bought more house than you can really afford.

That doesn't make any sense. Most people don't have an unlimited budget. What you've said is, "If you pay X, but can't afford X+Y, then you shouldn't have committed to paying X."

Re:US

[flaming error]

He knows exactly what exponential means.

Re:US

[ahodgson]

Oh so the feds only have to take 100% of the economy and apply it to the debt. So easy. Good luck with that.

You know Greece has less debt per capita than the US, right? How happy are they?

Re:US

[Jerry Smith]

No, what I am saying is if you can afford X(mortgage)-Y(tax credit for interest paid) then you should be able to afford X.

If you cannot afford a reduction in your income of less than 10%, you cannot afford the home you are in.

The prices of the houses increased because sellers KNEW that buyers had more to spend because of the tax refund. That's part of the air in the housing bubble.

Re:US

[Sentrion]

You've never been to Australia, mate. Better quality of life. EU style healthcare so you don't lose your life savings when some doctor surprises you with his out-of-network facility or lab fees. If you get cancer and are too weak to work you don't lose your health coverage, so there's at least some chance of continuing medical treatment undisrupted to possibly beat your disease or at least leave your kids an inheritance. Better work-life balance, longer vacations, less expensive to fly from Oz to hundreds of tropical destinations. A road trip could take you to any type of landscape you prefer (though mostly desert in the interior, but no worse than the American West).

Australia doesn't have as many "enemies" as America, so traveling with an Aussie passport is generally safer, and it isn't as likely to get nuked off the planet in WW3. Only problem is so many people want to move to Australia that immigration is tight. But if you're under 40 and have technical or trade skills you'll probably get in. It helps to speak English like a native speaker, as well as if you come from a Commonwealth country. The Aussies, due to geography, have an advantage trading with China, India, and other nations in the Pacific Rim. Very little national debt, so economy is great, but trying hard to get more immigrants with high-tech skills. Lots of land in the interior, though water is in short supply, so sustainable agriculture for a growing population could be an issue in the future. If China ever seeks military expansion like Japan in WW2 then Australia could be a target for invasion, but what are the odds, right? China on the warpath wouldn't be good for anybody in the way, and the USA is more of a threat to China than Australia. All said, thousands of miles of ocean separating Australia from the rest of the world means that military threats can only come from heavily industrialized nations with substantial military forces. There is illegal immigration, but limited to boat people, so no porous border issues to worry about. Little to no terrorist threat to Aussie soil, though occaissionally Aussies can be targeted in hot zones if the terrorists can't find any Americans. Australia tends to be more "out of sight - out of mind" and generally not considered a threat to any other nations. Aussies also benefit from being a Commonwealth country, making future travel or immigration easier. Better social safety net for people down on their luck (though some abusers too lazy to work, so taxes are higher than the US). Relationship with indigenous people can be touchy at times due to abuses in the past, and some present-day conflicts over sacred sites, but Australian aborigines tend to be easy to get along with. Much less racism compared to KKK and Black Panthers in America. Murder rate is lower as well (4.2 in US vs. 1.0 in Australia, per UNODC). All in all its hard to imagine a much better place.

Re:US

[Burning1]

Those steps would be unpopular with many, but to save the US economy in the long run, we're gonna have to cut a LOT of spending, and a lot of that is social programs, there's just no two ways about it. Medicare will likely go bankrupt in the near future if nothing is done.

I cringe every time I hear something like this. If you want to reduce debt, you cut spending and raise revenues, and you do it in such a way that doesn't kill your future (E.g. don't cut educational spending) or create additional drains on the economy (cutting medical programs.)

Everyone wants to talk about running the government like a business. Look at HP and Apple. Which focused on cutting spending, and which focused on raising revenues? Name a single company that grew and thrived through cost cutting alone.

Re:US

[Sir_Sri]

Ok, by objective measures, low crime, highest average disposable income (which, without specifics of his qualifications we can't pin down more), the 4 I listed at the end, on health, education, vacation time the US is still behind canada australia and northern europe. On immigration ease the US is behind northern europe (for a southern european anyway).

You would actually be hard pressed to find, on any average measure, a reason why the US is a better place to live than a number of choices elsewhere. If you're a staunch religious nutter then sure, but if you're a staunch religious nutter you're not going to ask on /. the best place to be.

If all you value is highest disposable income then I guess you want to move to norway Luxembourg or Qatar or something, but still not the US. If you're looking for what is, on average, the best place to live, it's not going to be in the US. That's why none of the links I had put any US cities on it.

If you're coming from India or the middle east it's a different calculation entirely. Because there you are much much much more concerned about where you can get into, and in what time frame. It doesn't do you any good if it's going to take 10 years to move to norway or 3 to move to the US even if the US is 10% worse by every objective measure. It's not that the US is really bad, but compared to europe it's not all that appealing, and if you just want riches there are smaller novelty states that will always outperform the US because they aren't burdened by being big which has a natural averaging effect.

I grant you, I'm assuming he's looking for an average measure of where is a good place to live, because he asked /. If you want to live somewhere with the highest average salary you can look it up yourself in 10 seconds.

Re:US

[im_thatoneguy]

Agreed. I'm in Seattle but if/when I move my list would be:

1) Wellington or Dunedin in NZ
2) Sydney
3) Vancouver, BC
4) Singapore

Re:US

[cayenne8]

Frankly, I'd like to take things further than you mentioned.

I'd like to see a more flat/fair tax implemented....and NO deductions whatsoever....!

The govt figures what they need to function, divvy it up and we all pay. And I don't think anyone working should be 100% exempt..everyone can afford to throw in at least $1-$5. That way, everyone has some skin in the game.

This way, everyone pays a more reasonable tax...no more 'loopholes', and finally, the federal govt will STOP using taxation as a means to try to mold citizen behavior via the deduction, etc.

With the tax savings many of us would realize in the middle class with such a system, home ownership would be easier.

But I'm all for no deductions at all....and then figure the realistic tax needed.

Re:US

[cayenne8]

Depends on which part of the country you are in.

Dude...I don't like it to hardly reach FREEZING (32F).....and it rarely does here in New Orleans.

:)

I'm guessing -40C is really fucking cold....and I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that temperature.

I kinda like wearing shorts and tshirts when cooking my Thanksgiving meal near end of November....deep frying a turkey out doors on a nice warm, winter day.

Re:US

[cayenne8]

I cringe every time I hear something like this. If you want to reduce debt, you cut spending and raise revenues,

I wouldn't mind a modest raise in revenues...IF it could be guaranteed that that raise would not in any shape, form or fashion, be used for new spending. I want it only to go towards paying the debt down.

If they do that, and cut waste and spending (like any household or business has to do when they have less income that outgo)...I'd be cool with it.

Then again, while I'm wishing for things, I think I might as well ask for a pony too...

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so ridiculous it's not even funny. The US is utterly rigged against anybody non-wealthy when it comes to starting a business. Where I come from (Scandinavia) literally anybody can start a business if they have a marketable idea and some willpower. Here in the US (I have lived here for ~15 years), you need a marketable idea plus twenty million dollars, unless your idea of a "business" is selling trinkets on Etsy while living with your parents. Having a social safety net is an incredible boon to any middle-class person starting a small business - in the US it's literally suicidal because the average person is dependent on an employer for things like health insurance. If you look up the data, you will find that Scandinavian countries in particular have many more small-to-medium businesses per capita than the US. People there have more personal freedom in their lives, as they are not de facto indentured servants to a corporation.

Re:US

[mirix]

Yeah, Our 'fiscal conservative' govn't that blew through the liberal's surplus, and is creating the largest deficit in the history of the nation. Some fucking fiscal conservatism that is.

I'm old enough to have lived through provincial NDP governments, and they've been the most fiscally sound we've ever had, while at the same time increasing social programs.

tory times are tough times.

Re:US

[irenaeous]

A couple points regarding Canada:
1. The Average Canadian is now richer than the average American.

2. Regarding Canada's federal debt. As of a year ago Canada's total Public Debt hit $1.1 Trillion, but that was only 57.9 % debt to GDP ratio. That is regarded as low and is perfectly fine. Canada can handle that just fine and still sustain robust economic growth. The US recently exceeded a ratio of 100% debt to GDP ratio. That is bad because when the debt ratio exceeds 85-90 % then economic growth is inhibited significantly.

Canada did the right thing running up the deficit during the recession so as to maintain economic growth. The U.S also had to do the same to keep the recession from expanding into a full blown depression. But Canada had good fundamentals -- a relatively low debt -- so it could run large deficits for a while without undue long term effects. It can lower spending later and bring the deficit down using expanded revenues from future GDP growth. The U.S was not in as good a shape having already run large deficits through out the Bush years. Now we are saddled with a huge debt burden that is sapping our growth dooming us to many years of low growth and high unemployment.

This is a list of the ten countries most in debt based on this percentage.

Re:US

[Sir_Sri]

*High work hours are easy to fix -

http://squirrelers.com/2010/10/20/vacation-days-by-country-how-do-we-rate/

By moving to europe. US 25 days off a year. Just about everywhere else on the list, more than 30, with some over 40. Even working a shitty call centre job in ireland will get you 5 weeks vacation. Finding that in the US or canada if you're not a professor is basically impossible.

*Health care is not an issue with health insurance (salaried IT worker). US physician skill level, medical equipment, drugs, and access/availability of care are top notch.

False. Lose your job, lose your insurance. You also pay a lot for inferior care. Even those insured in the US get bad care. The problem in the US is that you actually get a lot of treatments (even covered ones) that aren't very good, and insurance providers are interested in reducing costs or attracting customers with flashy treatments, not trying to provide the best care for the minimum cost. This is why, for example, the poorest in the UK get better healthcare on average than the richest in the US. e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/world/europe/03health.html?_r=1 and the UK system provides better outcomes for everyone.

Lets not get into things like lifetime caps on insurance, or not getting preventative care covered, because Obamacare will theoretically help but it's still an enormously wasteful system.

I saw significantly more racism/hate of specific foreign cultures/immigrants when living in areas of Finland

Without a doubt. Europe has a racism problem. It's just a different racism problem than the one in the US. If you're used to the one in europe why bother getting used to the one in the US? The racism problem in europe is going to get worse before it gets better as it becomes 'blame the turk' 'blame the arab' 'blame the indian' 'blame the roma' etc. for all that ails them, and their lack of jobs.

but they're often expensive

Unnecessarily expensive. As an american you are in many cases likely to get a better education for less money by being a foreign student in Canada or europe (paying 20k a year in tuition) than by staying in the US. Some of the state schools in the US aren't bad and aren't soul crushingly expensive, but every school in canada australia or europe is 'not bad and not soul crushingly expensive'.

Re:US

[flaming error]

There is no such thing as "robust growth," or at least not "perpetual growth."

Growth is not permanently sustainable in a finite universe. Any economy based on perpetual growth is a pyramid scheme on a collision course with the laws of physics.

Re:US

[OneAhead]

yes, they are simply going to print more money. no problem involved...they are doing it from a long time now...

But still...so far, we're still doing better than much of the EU which is going down the tubes...

Funny, that's exactly what my European friends say: (paraphrasing) "Yeah, the Eurozone is having a bit of a rough time, but politicians haven't even brought out the big guns yet. So far, we're still doing better than the US which is going down the tubes..."

Re:US

[cayenne8]

Planet Money went over the should-be-easy choices that are the start to fixing our problems:

1. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

2. Tax employer-provided health insurance

3. Eliminate corporate income tax

4. Eliminate income and payroll taxes

5. Significantly tax bad things that we want to reduce (i.e. pollution, gasoline, energy use)

6. Legalize drugs (especially marijuana)

Now all you need to do is get a successful Economist Party up and running. Good luck with that.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform [npr.org]

Not sure why this got modded into oblivion....this is pretty interesting for ideas....I don't agree with ALL of it..but most of it, IMHO, is very much on track and should be considered.

Ok...goodbye points....

:)

Oh well...sometimes you have to take one for the 'team'.

Re:US

[mcvos]

It's a myth that the US still has the highest social mobility. It used to, but it stalled. Europe is now the better place to make your ambitions come true, unless you are already rich and you want to become a millionaire. The US is still the millionaire's paradise.

The minimum of corruption is also false. Corruption is inherent in the US political system, which relies on corporate money. Corruption is much lower in northern Europe (but less so in the south).

The US is a great place to be for the haves. They control the money, the media, the politics, the government, the patents, etc. It can still be okay if you can get support from the haves: VCs, get bought by a major company, etc. But if you want to be your own man, do your own thing, and benefit from your own growth, Europe is the better place now.

Re:US

[AmiMoJo]

China won't sell its US debt because it is the mechanism by which it can exert control over the US economy. After what happened in Indonesia with the US funded property boom China decided to make sure it could prevent the US doing it again through debt.

You are absolutely right, China and the US are now so reliant on each other and so inextricably linked financially neither side can screw the other and the whole world is more stable. We have China to thank for that.

Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is the place to be IMHO. With the stable economy, the speedy rise of the IT sector and easy Permanent Residence options, it should be your best bet, both in the short and the long run.

Re:Oh Canada!

[0123456]

Look at the climate in Vancouver.

Look at the wages and house prices in Vancouver.

Re:Oh Canada!

[zill]

Seattle: 69 degrees
Vancouver: 19 degrees

Jesus! Didn't expect 100 miles to make that much of a difference. We sure drew that border at the right place.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Mashiki]

Canada is the place to be IMHO. With the stable economy, the speedy rise of the IT sector and easy Permanent Residence options, it should be your best bet, both in the short and the long run.

Canada is teetering right now, and banks are being warned to prepare for a housing collapse much like what happened in the US. A few other things, housing prices are sliding across the country, generally down 5-30% depending on where you are. Vancouver is down around 15%, Toronto is down around 10% on prices from last year. Houses that are on the market, stay on the market for a long time. I live in the SWON(South-western Ontario), and places here are sticking around for 6-9 months before selling. I'm also seeing a lot of places being repo'd by the banks, and I mean a lot. 8 places in my neighborhood in the last 3 months, and more before that, lot of places going up for sale too, even in the new subdivisions. Some places have crashed like Windsor, which are down 40%. It's starting to look a lot like very late 2005 Florida here, and I was in Florida at the time.

Unemployment is *sticky* at the best depending on where you are. IT can be seriously hit or miss, and you can find good jobs, but some of them require experience way outside of what is required, even by US standards of stupidity.

Permanent Residence? Waiting list from hell. You'll be waiting a long time. And the numbers are being cut back as well.

The original poster asked about other places too? India I can't comment too much about, but China is having some serious liquidity issues right now too, and some serious food shortage issues too. Bad enough that they're opening their food banks to stop shortages.

Re:Oh Canada!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Look at the climate in Vancouver.

Look at the wages and house prices in Vancouver.

Look at the gang violence in Vancouver. I like the city, but let's not pretend it's all peaches and cream.

Re:Oh Canada!

[shutdown -p now]

It depends on which way you go about it. The usual one, where you apply for permanent residency from outside the country... yeah, good luck with waiting for the backlog there. On the other hand, the provincial nominee program (PNP), where you get in the country on a regular work visa, work for a year, and then apply for PR, is still a reasonably fast and simple way to get PR and then citizenship. Less problem with "oversubscribing" there because there are far fewer people who can get a work visa to begin with, and once you're in, you go on a priority track. And you don't have to worry about visa terms, since, once you've applied for PNP, if your work visa expires you can extend it essentially indefinitely and make it open (i.e. not tied to a particular employer) until you get a final judgment on your PR.

Case in point: it took me ~2 years to get PR, starting from early 2010. This is for BC, so I don't know how other provinces fare in comparison - I'd expect the backlog to be somewhat bigger in Ontario and Quebec, and about the same in Alberta.

Re:Oh Canada!

[EmperorOfCanada]

Canada even has at least one financial company looks exactly like Canada's version of Countrywide. The main thing missing with this company is that the head guy doesn't quite have the tan of the Countrywide guy; close though.

One difference between Canada's property bubble and the US one is that the ratings people have already started to lower the ratings on Canada's banks. I guess the ratings people have two advantages, one is that they might have learned something from the US disaster and two is that they are far away from the wrath of the Canadian banks and regulators who otherwise might be able to get them to alter reality.

To respond to the OP's question. Canada has huge regional disparities. Centered in Southern Alberta there is a mountain of cash; but that cash is totally dependent on the price of oil remaining high. If oil were to drop below the extraction costs, say $60, a huge amount of the money in Alberta just drys up. BC has quite a healthy economy and is not too bad. Ontario is trying to rediscover itself after decades of manufacturing that depended on a low Canadian dollar which was bumped way up by Alberta oil. Quebec is just weird. Eastern Canada, called the Maritimes has zero money outside of Newfoundland. The key to understanding Canada is that we specialize in hacking things out of the ground and sea. So if the world commodities market is strong then so are we. Other than Quebec being petulant Canada is a very stable place where the two biggest riots in a while were about student fees and hockey. Canada is self sufficient in food and oil so in theory could weather a world swamping storm. So if your research is in something that comes out of the sea or ground then someone will have work for you to do.

The main downside to Canada is that we are next to the US and can't move away if trouble starts brewing there.

Re:Oh Canada!

[hesiod]

Well, there's another mark in the "pro" side of Vancouver!

Re:Oh Canada!

[shutdown -p now]

I lived there for a while, and you don't have to be fluent in Chinese. The only trick you'd have to learn is dodging cars on the roads. ~

Stay where you are

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay where you are. "I believe I have the nondisprovable ability to predict worldwide economic trends" is a terrible reason to move.

Re:Stay where you are

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually agree right now. A few years back I'd have said move to somewhere like Australia, or Canada, or similar. But frankly, both these countries have taken political turns for the worse. Honestly, if the problems in southern Europe are really problematic for you, just move further North in Europe for now - Germany, France, the UK, or one of the Scandinavian nations.

Canada needs to kick the Conservatives back into the long grass with a massive electoral defeat that means they'll be un-electable for at least another 15 years before it becomes a reasonable option again, and Australia just needs to ditch Murdoch's complete ownership of nearly the entirety of it's media and simultaneously ditch all the current mainstream parties for some that are slightly more rational.

There is a lot of wisdom in what you say, it's easy to listen to the miserable press bitching about their own country/politicians, but you get that everywhere, and right now I'm not convinced the grass is greener anywhere much really and hence IMO it's the wrong time to move. Things need to settle first before anyone can give advice as to what the best 5, 10, 20 year bets are. It wasn't much more than 20 years ago that the Berlin wall was still standing and the USSR was dominant across Eastern Europe, so judging what anywhere will be like in 20 years will be tough anyway.

Check Out this place:

[networkconsultant]

http://www.openmint.net/masdar-city-green-living-experiment Masdar is the worlds first attempt at a completely energy neutral city.

Re:Check Out this place:

[shutdown -p now]

What benefits would that provide to the submitter?

Re:Check Out this place:

[NatasRevol]

No, that's the country that will be underwater in 25 years.

Re:Check Out this place:

[NeutronCowboy]

Oil, coal and gas prices won't wreck havoc on the local economy.

Dont belong anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

As a person who was born in one country, brought up in a second, did college in a third, married a woman in a fourth, and when back to live in the country I did college in, I do not belong anywhere. I would move to any country that provided me with an opportunity I was interested in. There are stupid immigration hurdles and such you have to deal with, and those are artificial constructs that we have created to slow the movement of people like me.

There is a saying in my parent's tongue. I am a pigeon, I fly wherever the seeds are. You should do that too.

 

Re:Dont belong anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does your "right" to deny me trump my "right" to travel anywhere I like on this planet? I was born here, same as you. As the GP said - artificial constructs. While I'm in another place the deal is reciprocal: you get my taxes from working, and the benefit of my helping the local economy, etc. And I get the "generous" use of that countries resources. If you're American or Canadian (or most "Countries" I suppose), your ancestors simply went and took this land for themselves, and then wish to deny others the same opportunity.

Re:Dont belong anywhere

[oracleofbargth]

My fellow Earthicans,

We need to take a stand against all the illegal aliens coming to our fair planet to probe for jobs. To this end, we will build a Dyson fence around the southern border of the solar system...

Re:Dont belong anywhere

[shutdown -p now]

So long as GP pays his taxes and performs his civic duties while residing in any particular country, how is it "crapping all over them"?

Too little info

[Sponge Bath]

China and India are on the rise. Brazil and Australia are looking good.

Can you speak the language? What are the immigration policies of these countries?

Re:Too little info

[DNS-and-BIND]

China does not permit immigration. You can get a residence permit if you have a real job, but it is only 1 year and is renewed at the pleasure of your local government. I have seen respected businessmen denied for no reason. They have to leave the country and their business predictably fails soon thereafter. There is a China green card program that is granted to a very small number of people every year. You won't get one, don't bother. You can marry a Chinese and get a 1-year "visiting relative" visa that can be renewed as long as you stay married, but this visa class is the same as a tourist visa and you cannot work on this visa, at least not in China. You'd have to have a WWW business or something.

It's funny how people from Western countries with ridiculously lax immigration procedures go abroad, expecting every country to be just like their own. They are shocked, shocked to find out that a visa is a sovereign act of a nation and it is that country's choice to set the rules.

Re:Too little info

[schlachter]

India and Australia speak English.

Re:Too little info

[c0lo]

Note that Australia is pretty hostile to immigration and it can be tough even for white people to get in.

Confirmed - if you don't find an employer to sponsor you, the wait period is forever-and-a-day.

Some other things: most livable cities + Melbourne still on top

However, don't forget most expensive cities for expats

If you have kids, no matter where you immigrate, good chances to be a nightmare for a period of 1-4 years - a no-no if your kids are past the primary school age.

Southern Europe may mean: Italy, Spain, Greece - Italian and Greek expats communities are pretty common, Spaniards not that much in English speaking countries.
Anyway, European countries have rather high population densities and good public transport coverage. US, Australia (and Canada??) are countries with huge suburban sprawls, owning a car is almost survival level (don't expect a shopping centre just as you exist your place and don't expect frequent buses in suburbs). Of course, if you are lucky (and find a good paid job) you may be able to afford to rent in central areas, but don't bet on it.

India - hmmmm... if you can think of a very busy market day (or a festival day) but forget about the fun, you'd have a pretty good idea on how the everyday streets in India look like (at least the case in major IT centres).
The car traffic is insane, a continuous rush hours except 4-5 hours during the night. Nobody seems to follow any other rule but "I want to go where I need" and nobody seems to care about incessant honking - I was under continuous stress my week in India, my brain interpreted the honking as "you are in immediate danger" (until I get adjusted to the idea they are using it just to signal their presence). Frequently, cars and motorcycles will even use footpaths to overtake. Malaria is a risk; one may (or may not) get adjusted with the food.
Power outages (of smaller scale than the recent major ones) are frequent - my experience: almost daily, of 3-15 minutes duration. If you have kids, I would strongly advice you against... otherwise, if you have a big adventurous spirit, why not?

China? Do you speak mandarin (for the mainland China)? What about Cantonese (for Honk Kong)? If neither, maybe it's not such a good idea

Re:Too little info

[oldmac31310]

I don't live in Australia and I have never had any problem understanding Australian English. I'm guessing that you are from the US. I have found that people from the US tend to not have a very good ear for understanding English spoken by non US speakers. I genuinely wonder what is up with that. I live in the US but am not from here and personally have little difficulty understanding English speakers from other parts of the world. I think it is just a matter of exposure to different accents over time. Same as learning other languages. As they become more familiar they become more accessible. Though I must admit to being a very poor and lazy linguist.

Re:Too little info

[SilverJets]

China does not permit immigration. You can get a residence permit if you have a real job, but it is only 1 year and is renewed at the pleasure of your local government. I have seen respected businessmen denied for no reason. They have to leave the country and their business predictably fails soon thereafter. There is a China green card program that is granted to a very small number of people every year. You won't get one, don't bother. You can marry a Chinese and get a 1-year "visiting relative" visa that can be renewed as long as you stay married, but this visa class is the same as a tourist visa and you cannot work on this visa, at least not in China. You'd have to have a WWW business or something.

It's funny how people from Western countries with ridiculously lax immigration procedures go abroad, expecting every country to be just like their own. They are shocked, shocked to find out that a visa is a sovereign act of a nation and it is that country's choice to set the rules.

It is the policies of countries like that, that make me wish my country was just as difficult to get into. While I do love my country I would jump at the chance to live somewhere else for a while but most other countries immigration policies make it practically impossible and yet they expect to be able to just walk into my country be given a place to live, health care, and a job or a welfare cheque.

Re:Too little info

[GPLHost-Thomas]

FYI, even if you are married, the visa is for 6 months, not one year anymore. After 5 years of being married AND owning a real estate property you live in AND having 200 000 yuan blocked into a bank account AND living for more than 9 months in China during this 5 years period, you may get a green card. The application currently takes more than a year. Once you get it, it's a permanent living permit that has to be renewed every 10 years. With it, you can even create a local Chinese company under your own name.

That's going to vary tremendously

[mooingyak]

It depends on what you value. You're from "Southern Europe". That's semi-specific. What sort of place are you looking for? Good schools? What kind of community do you want? What kind of language skills do you have and/or are willing to acquire? What sort of culture are you looking for?

Plus, your economic analysis is overly simplistic:

The U.S. is in debt and there is no way of telling how long this can go on.

If the US experiences a major economic collapse, there is no place in the world where you won't feel the effects of that. Or at least, no place in the world where you can hold a job as an "IT researcher".

Re:That's going to vary tremendously

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

His nic is "Tsakas". Now think, which semi-bankrupt Southern European country could he be from. Given that he is looking to exit one country which was living beyond its means and was called on it, the US looks too familiar. One day China is going to call in the debts. From here it looks as though the US is trying to reduce immigration anyway, not the best option.

Only 20 years?

[davidwr]

But you said raising a family.

This means "where would you go so your kids will have the best opportunities in their lifetimes."

Unless money to travel and attend college abroad is no object, this requires a much longer time horizon than 20 years.

Unfortunately, any reasonably precise prediction of where the world - or any part of it - will be politically and socially 20+ years from now has a high margin of uncertainty.

The US.

[geekoid]

I don't think you actual understand the economic issue.
I suspect you don't understand the EU's issue on a big scale either.

The grass is not always greener....

[bleh-of-the-huns]

No matter where you look, each location will have its own fair share of problems. Rather then picking a location based on economics and political issues, pick a location where you will be happy.

Now obviously, being happy is contingent on being employed and being able to live where you choose, but I guarantee you one thing, following the money does not always work.

Minnesota, USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Twin Cities (Minneapolis & Saint Paul) Minnesota. Hands down. Big IT market that is growing, middle of the continent, near the Canadian border, more fresh water lakes than any other place on the planet. Very progressive populace with excellent education and employment opportunities. Only real problem is a terrible fucking transportation system but we are trying to fix that.

Please tell NO ONE. ;)

Re:Minnesota, USA

[Grishnakh]

Isn't that where Michelle Bachmann comes from? Any place where the people are backwards enough to elect that freak is not going to be a place where anyone from Europe would want to live.

Australia

[fiannaFailMan]

Good weather. Anglophone. Fun people. Healthy culture. Melbourne was just voted the most livable city in the world again. Economy booming because of natural resources being mined out of the ground and sent to China. All you really need to adapt to is driving on the left.

I hear what others say about Scandinavia, and those countries truly have their shit together, but I'd find the long dark winters to be very depressing.

"On the rise"

[shutdown -p now]

One thing you have to keep in mind that China and India "on the rise" are still far worse off than US and Europe. There's no guarantee they'll be better in 20 years even if they sustain that rise, which they won't necessarily do - China in particular has a pretty nasty bubble ready to burst.

I'd stick to developed countries for the simple reason that you get some basic guarantees there that you don't in the third world should things go very wrong. For the same reasons I'd avoid US long-term - it's a good place to earn money during the productive period of your career, but not so good to retire in. If you're already in Europe, it's probably easier to go for one of the better developed countries there as they're more likely to weather the storms - Germany or France are two obvious destinations. Then there's Scandinavia - Finland looks surprisingly decent on many counts if you're willing to live with the weather.

If you are really bent on seeking something outside of Europe, consider Canada - a saner version of US on so many counts, especially economy wise. And you still have US nearby, which is convenient for shopping and some other things. Very easy to immigrate to, as well. Australia is also a very decent option, and if you're a believer in China long-term, you should consider them for the simple reason that it's in the same region and China is their major trade partner.

Re:Emigration Sucks

[fiannaFailMan]

It's expensive and time consuming with unpredictable returns.

"Time consuming"? This isn't the ocean liner era, this is the jet age! Leave Heathrow and 13 hours later you're in San Francisco.

When I left England I was excited as all hell about moving to California. The excitement has never 100% worn off, and I've been here 12 years now.

Re:I'm also looking for somewhere new

[Anonymous Coward]

Southern Europe is the place for you.

What's ...

[fahrbot-bot]

What's the Best Place To Relocate?

That's a tough question. Most areas are heavily acclimated to their current location. Anything non-trivial would have to swapped with something else, rather than simply relocated. Swapping even geographic close regions like North and South Dakota could have drastic unforeseen consequences; certainly swapping larger areas like France and Spain are right out. Perhaps a building or ballpark would be a good candidate for relocation, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Any ideas /. ?

good question is

[nimbius]

why are you relocating? if you fear for the wellbeing of your family you should know the health insurance for american workers is generally inferior to that of many european nations especially when considering their family coverage. The public education is routinely inferior as well, and 40 hours per week for tech workers is conservative in many cases. You arent going to see much more than 1-2 weeks of vacation in the first year in the states, and several of the southern states are sadly virulently xenophobic.
can you clarify on what you mean by markets pulling the teeth out of strong european countries? You make it seem like you've simply become jaded by a spate of recent financial reforms. Strong Europeans are the backbone of strong European countries, so if you and others leave it simply leaves more room to turn the EU into a libertarian dystopia.

Re:good question is

[benjfowler]

Top notch healthcare does fuck all for me if I can't afford decent cover.

One word....

[Howard Beale]

Singapore. I worked there for two weeks at the Marina Bay Sands project. English is the primary language, the area is beautiful and clean. Hated coming home. I'd still move my wife and kids there in a second.

Re:One word....

[isorox]

Singapore. I worked there for two weeks at the Marina Bay Sands project. English is the primary language, the area is beautiful and clean. Hated coming home. I'd still move my wife and kids there in a second.

Singapore is nice, just be ware of the various laws and lack of freedoms. They still have caning in Singapore, and the death penalty. No idea what the safety net's like if you get laid off either -- Healthcare, schooling etc.

that's quite ambitious

[bitt3n]

here's how I would do it: first 5 years in US, which probably won't collapse before then, and if it gets close, we'll just hornswoggle the Chinese into buying a bunch of movie studios like we did with the Japanese. Next 10 years in China. Make sure you pick up Mandarin. Parlay your ability to quote verbatim the scripts of popular 80's action movies into a career as executive of a floundering movie studio. Walk out of the office one day saying "I'll be back." Never go back. Next 20 years in Brazil, where you'll leverage your Chinese connections to become a major wheeler dealer in a revival of the opium trade. The most important thing is to leave no trace as you proceed. You don't want families 1.0 or 2.0 paying you and Conchita an unexpected visit in your Sau Paulo hacienda.

Sweden

[Orphis]

The economy here isn't bad at all and it's quite peaceful, even in the capital Stockholm.
Sweden's definitely a great place to start a family as the society do a lot for the parents (compared to many countries).
I moved there a year ago and I have no regret at all :)

Oh, and Swedish isn't that difficult to learn at all, you'll be just fine speaking English until you learn it!

Bonus: if you haven't found a spouse yet, I can say that there are some really beautiful girls here too ;)

Re:Emigration Sucks

[0123456]

Time consuming"? This isn't the ocean liner era, this is the jet age! Leave Heathrow and 13 hours later you're in San Francisco.

You seem to have skipped the part where you wait years for a residency visa/green card and then years more for citizenship so you can't be kicked out at any time. Some of my friends went to California on work permits in the late 90s and were back a few weeks later when their new employer laid them off.

Re:The MOON

[bobbutts]

You forgot the best part... 0 Air Quality problems

Reading too much into the cover of The Economist

[jeffmeden]

Sounds like you are basing your decisions on a glance at the financial section of a magazine rack...

"Trouble in Europe"? Oh no! Better get out of here!
"Trouble in The US"! Oh no! Better not move there!
"Indonesia at a crossroads" Hmm, sounds promising!

Try opening the thing up next time and actually read what's going on. Then take the "am I ready to live in am emerging market?" quiz:

Do you like to have to bribe your way around the local bureaucracy?
Do you like to live within a mile of crushing poverty?
Do you like to endure social, natural, and economic crises?

If you answered yes to all of these, then yes an emerging market is for you (i.e. Brazil, China, India, etc). If you answered no to any of them, stay in a Western country. Keep your skills current and if the place goes downhill, just relocate again. Hell, you did it once, right?

Re:Proximity to Slashdot

[21mhz]

Aye. Imagine, being able to shave microseconds off your fr0st p1sst response times...

Brazil

[leandrod]

Brazil and Australia are looking good

We are not. No education to speak of, a government which is making the same mistakes which resulted in the European crisis, lots of crime and violence. Also we are more and more becoming an exporter of commodities, because our tax system is totally regressive and cumulative, working against manufacturing and services by making everything very, very expensive — and we have lower salaries than those of the First World.

I lived in Europe. Only reason I did not stay was that I was not allowed to.

Re:Australia

[Skapare]

The way I'd like to do it is alternate between the summer in Norway and the summer in Chile. I love mountains and seaside.

I've seen some of the world, it's OK, I guess.

[OrangeTide]

Living in a foreign place can be pretty lonely. It's no surprise that people are of the opinion that their own country is one of the best places to live. It's not a uniquely American phenomena. The handful of Frenchmen I know hold the same view of their homeland (save one, who actually like the US better than France).

I think it takes a certain personality to enjoy travel and new places. Some of us are homebodies, and I think it is unreasonable to view us as backwards or ignorant of the world.

Re:where, oh where

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but that is a gross calumny of what the economic climate is in China. I am not sure what you mean by 'working slob' but a white guy from Europe who knows English well enough to write this 'Ask Slashdot' question and is an 'IT researcher' would do very well in China. For that matter, most Chinese that have family in a major city and successfully graduate from a decent high school and university will find employment that gives them comparable buying power to other first-world nations as long as they buy primarily domestic goods.

Now if you criticized their political climate for being oppressive and caustic to liberty I would have agreed with you whole heartedly. But as far as economics go, the reality is that the Chinese analogue to your average urban middle-class American actually does quite well and lives comfortably in China.

Re:Not sure what an IT "researcher" is and if it..

[inglorion_on_the_net]

I moved to the San Francisco bay area last year and I'm loving it. Things to add to what AC said:

* Good weather.
* There is something here for everyone. If you like quiet, you can live in the suburbs. If you like more lively, you can live in one of the cities. You can go surfing and skiing on the same day.
* Yes, house and groceries are expensive. On the bright side, if you work for any of the tech companies, you will easily be able to afford things.
* Regarding visas: If you get a job with one of the larger tech companies, they will sponsor your visa. It may take a while before visas become available, though, as there is a quota.
* Companies here are definitely looking for more good people to hire, so if you have the skills they need, your chances of getting here are pretty good.

I don't know about the other places that have been mentioned, so I'll save the commenting on those to people who actually live there.

England

[benjfowler]

I hail from Australia, and always felt that I was in a very small country with limited opportunities, despite everything going for it. Probably a fantastic country to raise kids or retire, but the economy isn't as big, and there aren't as many opportunities as, say, the US or UK.

I wanted out, because I wanted to swim in a bigger pond. It was a tossup between the US and the UK, and because I had an easy visa (something you might like to consider), I just went to London. The UK has big social problems (even more than the US, it has a huge, feral, festering underclass, and I get the impression that the UK is a *BAD* place to be down on your luck), but if you're good at what you do, you can probably afford to live in a good areas and send your kids to decent schools and generally stay away from all the shit. London is a huge, bustling, dynamic place that's fairly close by, and there's something here for just about everyone (unless you're poor, of course).

You're southern European, as you say, so don't forget that you have EU treaty rights. There are plenty of options for relocation within Europe.

That said, you wouldn't want to retire here. I certainly don't plan on sticking around past retirement.

Look at Economics

[fadethepolice]

Calgary, Alberta - Just located the world's greatest source of hydrocarbons near here on top of the second largest heavy oil deposits in the world. Coupled with great opportunity for growth in both tourism and agriculture. This city is one of the safest bets. Not too far from Vancouver and the sea as well. Perth Australia - Australia hasn't had a recession in 50 years. Perth is isolated both geographically and politically from most of the destructive currents on our planet, has significant energy deposits in the are, so it's probably a pretty safe bet. Good climate too. If global civilization collapses this is a possible re-seed point of civilization. North Dakota. - Low unemployment, booming economy. Pittsburgh PA - Low unemployment, booming (relatively to res of US) economy, massive sources of clean water, cheap place to live. Russian border regions around china - Probably a good area to locate economically. May have to worry about wars caused by demographics. Halifax Nova Scotia - Stable climate, place is isolated, local stocks of food.

Oxymoron Question

[Qbertino]

1st of all: If I would want to start a family I wouldn't plan to go anywhere for less than 20 years. Times are unruly enough as it is. With children you want a good school, a good community and - most important of all - a good wife and her our yours or both families near by. Everything else comes second!

If you want to start a family you should even consider a career change if that is required to provide for the other things mentioned above. The family will be your primary fullfillment, not the job, so you might as well work as a bricklayer, provided the income is enough. Also factor in: Free housing or easy real estate from your family or in-laws, quality of life, happiness of wife (where does she want to live and raise children) etc. All of these are *way* more important than monetary income. Especially in times like these.

If I'd start a family again, I'd move together with my girlfriend in the town she lives, simply because her career is way more solid than mine right now. And I wouldn't care if I were the main caregiver to children and would be driving a dump-truck on the side. Be prepared to do that aswell if your future wife turns out to be the vice-exec of some uprising company or having and wanting to keep a more stable career than you aparently have right now.

2.) If you want to earn money in IT and are prepared to leave everything behind, you do the full monty and should get prepared to move anywhere within a few weeks notice, at any time and occasion. Singapur, Silicon Valley, Moskow, Dubai perhaps and maybe some high-polpulation areas in china are where the partys at right now. Live out of the suitcase or in microapparments for the next 15 years, rake in some stable cash or real estate and buy/build a home for your old age.

3.) If you aren't prepared to go full-on cyberpunk and move around the globe for the rest of your working career you should stay put right where you are and adapt. If the Euro goes belly-up and the world finally notices that the US dollar isn't worth the paper its printed on then you'll be glad if you've got some contacts to a local farmer and some real-estate and a small shed on it somewhere in southern europe. And maybe some solar panels to power your computers. I'd be happy if I had that. I'm living in a single room sharing flat with 6 people in Germany and right now things aren't looking up, even for an expert like me. Living expenses are through the roof, the IT staff shortage is nothing but a legend to keep wages at the 2002 minimum and inflation is ramping up allready.

Bottom line: Move for the family you want to start, and *only* for that, go fully international and prepare to relocate to Timbuktu if the money and/or the benefits package is right or stay put, get by somehow and prepare for some elongated worldwide economic downtime.

My 2 cents.

Melbourne, Vienna, or Vancouver

[circletimessquare]

source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9475307/London-slips-down-list-of-best-cities-despite-glorious-Olympics.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities

Montreal, qc, Oh Canada

[denisbergeron]

Speaking for my church.
We don't have the recession, we don't have the climate problem, we don't have gun, neither any strong social/cultural problem.
We do have a strong IT/software development infrastructure from aerospace to game field or financial institution.
We are a multilingual and multicultural city, you can find food and language from anywhere around the globe here.
We do have apartment or house that doesn't ask you a arm.
We do have nice commuting infrastructure, the metro (subway) are underground, some apartment building and office building have direct access to the metro... so you don't have to but your nose outside during the cold day of the winter or the hot day of the summer.
We have a unique family policy that put the children as a societal value (6-8 month of parental care for a new birth, cheap children gardening, real restaurant with children place...)
In the city of Montreal, you will find a lot of natural park and children park.
Park are big enough to do mountain bike, skying, and so on....
Lot of Europeans people work in the IT field in Montreal, you will not look that strange...
It's easy to have the canadien residence for a european
If you have a diploma from a know european university, you will have a job faster than the canadian residence.

Re:Montreal, qc, Oh Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Montreal is definitely NOT the place to be in IT.

1. The province has lost 50,000 jobs in just the last two months, and IT has been bleeding 1,000 jobs a WEEK for 2 years running (they hide it by combining it with other non-related stats, so you have to really drill down into the data to elicit the facts)
2. 
   Political instability - the separatist Parti Quebecois is leading in the polls and the election is less than a month away. And there's the nightly anti-gov't demonstations.
3. 
   Debt, debt and MORE debt - if Quebec were to separate, it would be as indebted as Italy, Ireland, Greece or Spain;
4. 
   It used to have the 2nd-highest taxes in the western world, but with the last 2 tax increases now ranks #1;
5. 
   regressive taxation caused by failure to index taxes for a generation. Someone earning the minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes (base rate starts at 16.5% to the province) than someone making $40,000 per year in Ontario 100 miles to the west (base rate 5.05%, larger base exemption, fewer mandatory levies). Even Alberta's flat 10% tax rate is much better;
6. 
   Language laws - your kids won't be allowed to attend english schools unless YOU attended an English school in either Quebec or somewhere else in Canada. English schools outside the country don't count.
7. 
   More taxes coming up next year, even though taxation has now passed the theoretical tipping point, and the last increase resulted in a dollar-for-dollar loss of economic activity in the first 3 months of 2012;
8. 
   Crime and corruption - street shootings are becoming a daily occurrence, despite guns being banned.
9. 
   Most corrupt western government in the world since at least 1991 - corruption is now estimated to cost every taxpayer $500 per year. In other words, Quebec would not be running a deficit if it weren't for corruption (and with the highest taxes anywhere, it SHOULDN'T be running a deficit - especially since it also receives over 8 BILLION a year in equalization payments, mostly from Alberta - that's $100 per person per month in govt welfare, not counting the $850 million in excess DEI payments, and the billions in indirect subsides).
10. 
    The "multi-cultural" is not really - official gov't policy is that "les autres" ("the others", immigrants) should be assimilated into the "French Fact" (and this despite the fact that the "French Fact" is unsustainable - what are you going to do, ban the Internet, satellite TV, English music and movies, etc? You could force every kid into french-only schooling, and french will still be a dead language within 2 generations);
11. 
    Decades of under-funded health care (diverting federal grants, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to other programs) and education;
12. 
    A demographic time bomb that over the next decade will explode, as the number of seniors grows faster than pretty much anywhere else; already, the system is dependent on illegal workers making less than the minimum wage (I know people who are working for $4/hour) to contain costs.

Nobody I've spoken to outside of Quebec gives a sh*t any more - if Quebec wants to separate, good riddance. The rest of the country (7 provinces with 50% of the population minimum) has the right to hold a constitutional meeting and reset Quebec's borders to what they were at confederation (costing Quebec most of its' territory).

And the "Plan Nord? What a joke - "Up to 20,000 jobs!!!" Hey, Quebec lost more than that in just one MONTH.

I'm about to relocate inside Brazil

[asr_br]

I'm Brazilian and I started working from home recently. Since my wife and I don't like they city we're currently living in, we decided to do some research and find a city where we would like to move to (still inside Brazil). If you can read portuguese, you might find our announcement and the criteria we've used useful: https://plus.google.com/112051803418632798341/posts/BTDpsC9Enta

I have plenty of friends who moved from Europe to Brazil. If you're single, you'll probably enjoy it for quite some time, and you'll probably have fun no matter which part of the country you move to. If you have wife and/or kids, you should be extra extra careful when selecting a city or region to move to. Brazil is huge and the difference in quality of living vary a lot between the different regions. And pay attention: the poorest areas usually have the best offers in the tech field (mostly due to tax incentivies for the tech companies).

Good luck.

Re:A true American

[clarkkent09]

Speaking as a naturalized American who spent 20 years living abroad, mostly in western Europe, there is nothing better than traveling abroad to convince even the most anti-American American (yes there are many, mostly of the 'grass is always greener on the other side' type) just how great the USA really is.

Re:A true American

[ZonkerWilliam]

Well I'm from Canada, been to the UK and Italy as well as Switzerland and Holland, also been on missions to Kenya and Haiti, i can safely say that the U.S by far is the best place to be (even if they are printing money). Will that do for non-biased or will only the answer you want to hear be sufficient for you?

Re:My picks...

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Estonia?
Climate is obviously a disadvantage (in winter) but it is very IT orientated and on its way up. No problems with immigration authorities. The cost of living is not *that* high but wages are not that high either - unless you work for Skype.

Better question

[onyxruby]

The better question is where can I relocate and survive outsourcing? Outsourcing is the number one threat to job stability no matter what country you are in. When I was younger I thought it was a problem with job being outsourced from more expensive northern states to cheaper southern states - it was. As I grew older I learned that was just the tip of the iceberg and that outsourcing meant you were competing against people all over the world. Outsourcing means that your job can be sent all over the world.

It doesn't matter where you go, you will face the same problems. Not only that you will also face all of the challenges of being an immigrant. Over the years I have talked with IT people from places like India and even there they outsource their jobs to other firms.

The bottom line is that you have to find a job that is difficult to outsource. There are ways to do this, for example find a job that can't be outsourced out of the country for national security reasons. Find a job that involves working directly with people and requires face to face interaction as a consultant. Find a job that requires your presence and not your skills.

You can be replaced, and companies will spend a fortune to do do it because in the long run they /perceive/ that they will save an even larger fortune by doing so.

Other places

[KingMotley]

The US is still a great place to live, but assuming you are part of the new trend of US haters, I would recommend you look at the following places:
1) Vancouver, Canada
2) Japan (one of the non-irradiated sections)
3) Norway
4) New Zealand
5) Switzerland

But those would be my preferences, yours may differ.

There's nowhere left to hide...

[AtlanticCarbon]

I think I've read stories about people from just about anywhere feeling the need to move in order to escape bad economic conditions. You hear a lot about people bringing up Australia or Germany. I don't see any long-term scenario in which other countries of the world are flailing but Germany and Australia are thriving. Economies are too interdependent these days.

One should choose a city where they have the strongest base of support from family and friends. If thinks get worse, you will need to rely on those people.

Re:There's nowhere left to hide...

[0123456]

When an entire generation lives with their parents rebellion can't be too far off.

You mean, like people used to do fifty years ago?

Re:Any place except Europe and Africa

[dkleinsc]

Please explain exactly why Europe has a worse future than, say, South America. It has serious problems, but it also has a highly educated population, an industrialized economy, relatively stable political systems (prime ministers come and go, but governments aren't getting overthrown by force like they would in many other places), long life expectancy, and quite a lot of wealth.

Also, I highly suspect you've never been there. If you had, you'd be pretty much crazy to prefer living in, say, the Congo.

Not Canada!

[kiwisteve]

All the houses are crap and Mike Holmes is going a round fixing them ONE AT A TIME!!!

Germany ! - Welcome to Germany

[burni2]

1.) very reasonable priced health care ! (contributions will be transfered by your employer to the insurance company from your salary)
- the health care insurance company is not allowed to pick, they have to take anybody

2.) good job market

3.) reasonable priced rent

4.) you can mostly get along with speaking english,
but learning german is not that hard,

Example: that iranian young women whose face pic was taken from facebook by western media due to a name glitch, she was prosecuted by the mullahs,
got asylum here and after only one and a half year she is fluent and speaks execelent, she was on radio last week.

If you want to learn german the national public radio (not npr) has a livestream,
http://www.dradio.de/

you can also find places on the internet where you can watch our exported tv series ("Der Tatort" which translates as "The Crime Scene" or "Derrek" these got even dubbed with japanese language for Japan of course!!)

5.) state forced sponsored pension (will be transfered by your employer as part of your salary) after your 67 birth day these insurance benefits will be paid

6.) disabled persons & families are last to be fired (workers rights)

7.) strong unions

8.) from north to south, funny speaking people

9.) reasonable wages
When you negotiate your salary keep taxes and other things in mind (~%43 will be subtracted from your salary) so just add it beforehand !

10.) IT, Tech & Engineering Jobs

I love my country so I'd like to present my country to people in this world, european, african, asian, indian.

Think of finding a job ?
-> Try Germany!

Scandanavia

[Prien715]

If by "Europe" is doing badly you must surely mean the Eurozone. Unemployment in Norway/Sweden/even formerly bankrupt Iceland is very good. If you're having kids, the 2 months mandatory paternity leave in Sweden would be nice. You'd get to spend time with your kids and not have to work all the time and it allows your spouse to keep a career too. The governments themselves are very stable with the lowest levels of corruption in the world (if only Greece could say the same!), allowing the high tax rate to give you a decent rate of return on services you receive.

In short, it's the southern European welfare state on steroids but done responsibly.

Re:Scandanavia

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Which is the elephant in the room. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland all have nicely functioning societies, quite popular with their own citizenry for the most part. They also act as if their citizenry mattered. They're also taxed up the wazoo BUT they get decent services out of it and a functioning safety net. Every time I hear about the dire consequences of taxes, socialized health care, and a reduced military, I can only look at these countries, and despair. Apparently, people here in the USA are now unable to see real world examples that demonstrate how nutty their ideas are.

Re:Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Chile is awesome. Super stable economy, not just during the crisis. Very family friendly. Real estate is cheap compared to, e.g., Argentina. Not sure if an IT researcher could do exceptionally well there. There's no one industry that is killer (except maybe mining), it's just a really well rounded economy. It's also kind of boring, the way Colorado would be boring in the 1950s. That's either a good thing or bad thing, depending on what you're looking for. But that's also why it's not on anybody's radar. (Note, conservatives love to talk about their free market pension plan, but everybody hates it there. The newspapers regularly complain about the 20-30% vig the banks take, so don't move there because Paul Ryan likes it. You'll just be disappointed.)

If you want to move to Brazil, I'd suggest Curitiba. Built predominantly by emigres from Europe and Japan, it doesn't have a lot of the crime and crazy politics of the larger, older cities further north which struggle with more inequality. It's also a global poster child for sustainable urban development practices, not just because of any single media-hyped development, but because of 30 years of sane planning.

Re:Prosperity + social democracy

[PRMan]

I hear New Zealand allows almost zero immigration.

From southern Europe?

[excelsior_gr]

Giorgo, is that you?

On a more serious tone, and as others pointed out above, you should have provided us with more clues. Relocating is an issue with lots of variables that vary strongly in each case. Having said that, all tips that one can give you can only be vague/anecdotal at best. Here are mine:
1. I am Greek working in Germany for 7 years now. Whether you can feel safe economically here strongly depends on who you work for. I work for a large chemical company (>15.000 employes worldwide) and can't complain. However, we now hire only if we explicitly need to fill a vacant place.
2. My Greek family and friends from my school/university years are all over the globe: Germany, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Brazil, UK. Those that are still in Greece plan to go away. However, this should come as no surprise. Greeks always had the tendency to migrate (also for no apparent reason) and this can only be enhanced by an economic crisis.
3. Strangely, some friends that were in USA came back (before the crisis broke out). Personal reasons also came into play, but it seemed that the conditions in the USA were not overwhelmingly good so as to encourage their stay.
4. In Australia you first need to get a well paying job in order to qualify for a visa. You can't go there looking for a job as many would imagine. This is likely to be valid for other countries as well.

My 2 cents.

Hubris

[jeko]

Also FYI, be good at what you do and no financial crisis can hurt you.

Deep, classical hubris.

FInancial crises promote societal upheavals. They crash stock markets. They wipe out real estate values. They destroy savings accounts. They turn cities into war zones. If you're rich enough, you get to learn all about the wonderful world of K&R insurance, and the wonder of placing full-time bodyguards with your children. You get to live behind more walls than most Supermax inmates. Your spouse begins to take their frustration out on you, as do your kids.

You become acutely aware of how far away the panic room is, and you push down any thoughts that someone might not come when you call for help from inside. You hire people to carry guns for you, and you have to worry as much about them as you do any bad guys. You become a family under seige. Even your kid's puppy love has to be fiercely vetted and worried about as a potential gold-digger.

Your whole world becomes as much about fear and survival as any plane crash victim lost in the wilderness. Your doctor recommends anti-anxiety drugs, and THAT becomes something to worry about.

So there you are, as grim as any soldier in a losing battle. Your food is exquisite and tasteless. Your insomnia is at least wrapped in silk sheets. Spend as much money on hookers as you want. You'll never get close to what a woman who loves you can do for you.

And remember, this is what happens when you have enough money to try to insulate yourself from the upheaval. "Being good at what you do," means you're just another working stiff, and the functional difference between $100K and homeless isn't nearly as much as you might like to think...

 

VIRUS IN LINK?

[rwv]

My corporate firewall warns me that the link to openmint.net contains a Trojan Virus. Buyer Beware.

I'm from Canada too, but I disagree with you.

[Chirs]

Have been to the UK, and most of Europe, have lived in the US and in the Congo.

While there are parts of the USA that are nice, on the whole I'll stick with Canada, thanks. Of course our current government really would like to turn Canada into the USA, while I think we'd be better off with a bit less of a gap between haves and have-nots.

Re:I'm from Canada too, but I disagree with you.

[iserlohn]

You must have led a pretty sheltered life to say that.

Re:A true American

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked both in San Francisco (CA) and in Munich (DE). And I would never ever go back to San Francisco.

Salaries are nearly the same, taxes are about 10% higher in Germany, but you have free comprehensive healthcare and a generous pension system. And workers' rights are far higher in Germany: in all large companies unions control 50% of the Supervisory Council (nearly equivalent to the "Board" in US companies), shareholders have a limited power, they're not the "owners" of the company. Workers' dismissal is also far more difficult.

I'm afraid that people in the US are really convinced that they live in "the richest nation in the world" because they've been told that since they were kids. Sorry, it's only the most militarized country in the world, not "the richest": 10% of wealthy people, 90% of quasi-beggars.

Re:A true American

[Dixie_Flatline]

My partner and I made the decision a long time ago to live anywhere but America. I have friends in the USA, and I visit fairly often, but I refuse to be in a country with the kind of politics that the US does. The fact that the abortion debate is alive and well is an absolute killer for us. Philosophically, we have trouble with a political system that thinks so little of its women and seems to be working hard to think even less of them. The split opinion on health care also baffles us; the fact that we don't have to consider our household budget or insurance plan when we need to see the doctor is pretty essential to us.

But, if you don't mind the politics and the guns (whether or not you get shot; you just need to not mind being around guns), there's a lot of nice folks there and a lot of opportunity.

So I can recommend Canada. Montreal, Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver are all amazing cities. They all have issues, but they're all wonderful in their own way. Vancouver will have the lowest taxes in that list, Montreal the highest. But the cost of living in Montreal isn't bad, so it kind of works out.

But ultimately, trying to predict the world economy and then trying to plan on where you want to live is a mug's game. Figure out where you want to live and see if you can make a living there.

Re:A true American

[supercrisp]

I have to disagree. Austria and Bavaria seem to me far nicer than Alabama and Tennessee. When it comes to taxation, you _can_ get what you pay for. My income tax in the US is 27.5% (state and federal income tax with medicare/social security), and in two years I'll likely be in the next bracket up, which puts me at about what my similarly-employed relatives are paying who live in Austria and Bavaria. But they get operas, healthcare, museums, beautiful cities. I get a town that's socially and culturally in a coma, ABC stores, almost daily gunfights, and downtowns built for cars and not people. I mean, Alabama is great if your idea of culture is geriatric hair bands, and it'd be fine for me if I were single again and could invest time in hunting and fishing as I once did. But for urban culture, it's hard to beat some places in Western Europe. But then again, I'm not all "socialism is slavery," and I'll never earn in those brackets where a German is paying 60% of his income in taxes.

Re:A true American

[SecurityTheatre]

That's funny, I've spent some time in Canada and Germany and I find both the personal, and business culture to be much more approachable and not substantially more expensive (sometimes cheaper).

Where were you? Spain? Belgium?

Places with a culture of "work to live" are really different than places with a "live to work" culture like is prevalent in the US. It certainly does take some adjustment, but as someone who left the US a number of years ago, I'm really glad I did.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Labour+shortages+Canada+lure+workers/6992936/story.html

Re:USA: Seattle, Silicon Valley, or LA

[Sentrion]

America is a great country for a second citizenship and second passport. Go there when you are young to make a lot of money quick. Then get out, fast, with your money before you get a chance to get sick or old, as the US system is based mostly on a vulture economy of compelling you to spend down your wealth to every single provider of health or care services. Insurance is a farce to give you piece of mind, but it is a POS that will not come through to meet enough of your expenses to survive anything but the most mild and short term illness.

Re:A true American

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Just so you know you hit 42% + 5.5% of taxes at ~50k USD in Germany. And VAT is 19%. So really tax rate for 2* the minimum wage is ~60% in terms of what you can actually spend on goods versus what ends up in the government hands.

And that's only if you don't own a house or a car or ..., because then you'll be paying more.

And it's not like higher paying jobs are easier in Germany. In fact, they're far easier to get in the US.

Re:A true American

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And I forgot about a pet peeve of mine. Keep in mind that for anything remotely interesting, the cost in stores should be using the exchange rate 1 EUR = 1 USD, for example for an iPad or a tablet or a computer. So everything remote computer or telco related is another 30% more expensive than in the US.

It's getting close to the point that if you want to buy a decent laptop, you may as well travel into the US to buy it, as the price difference will pay for the flight, and you get to go sightseeing in the process.

Re:Wuss

[mirix]

Me too. And it's too bloody cold here, even being a native. If I immigrated from somewhere warmer I'd want to kill myself (more than I already want to) all winter long (all 8 months of it).

Nowhere near that easy

[Mr. Underbridge]

So I realize that this is chapter ad verse from the Book of Bernanke, effectively, but it's insane. Yes, you are correct in the short-term that the amount of the debt doesn't matter, but how much it costs to service it. But that's only true if you can manipulate the interest rates to ever-lower levels to account for the deficit spending that we've all been experiencing. After all, even given your math, if the principal keeps increasing, the interest rate has to keep going down, right? So my question to you is, how long do you think the US can keep pushing interest rates lower? Certainly not forever. Probably not much longer at all. These historically low interest rates will have to increase at some point.

I make analogies to household finance because it's easier for people to see certain ideas as completely insane when framed in a conventional frame of reference. Essentially what the US - and much of the rest of the world - has done is take out national debt on what amount to variable interest rate loans, and we've taken them out at historically low rates. Indeed, we've set our national budget based on what we can barely afford even given those historically low rates, and even then our total debt continues to grow.

Sound familiar? Pretty much exactly what happened around 2004 when every homeowner maxed out on interest-only loans they could barely afford, then paid bills on credit cards. And we saw how smart that was. As soon as rates went up a bit, we saw a feedback loop that resulted in a cascade of debt failure. Now every country in the world is doing the same thing with their national finance that those homeowners did with household finance. Great plan.

The problem with your strategy is the same problem that happened then: everything gets screwed up when the interest rate merry-go-round stops and the cost to service the debt balloons. Even more fun is that, if we don't solve the problem, lowered debt ratings will also result in higher interest rates on that debt as it goes out of control.

So what do we do? Claiming that the debt is an artificial political construct is fantasyland. If your neighbor told you his debt - that amounted to as much as he makes in a year and is growing rapidly - is just something his wife says to piss him off, you'd say he was delusional. It's no different here. Ballooning debt is a huge long-term issue. The only question is how much we trade off short-term vs. long term to solve our immediate problems. Put another way, how much do we live off our credit cards to pay the bills?

First, you've highlighted one thing very accurately - continuing to pay unemployment benefits to some people who have been on them for up to four years straight is completely insane. Providing incentives to employers to hire full-time employees with health benefits would be a much better idea. But that is too obvious for US leadership.

The next thing is how you get off this merry-go-round. Your solution, as you state, is to simply manage interest rates at a low level. If only it were that easy - sorry, but you can't keep them this low forever. Or even likely very long. So the question is, how do you let them rise without leading to crippling inflation or an equities crash? Your plan requires a solution to that problem. It also requires a plan to return our debt-to-GDP level to where it needs to be, which will probably require keeping debt constant (ie, balance the budget) while increasing GDP and letting interest rates rise to normal levels. And it's going to be very hard to do all those at the same time.

Otherwise, we "solve" this stagnation/unemployment problem only to cause new, potentially worse problems. And this is the problem I have with Greenspan's legacy - we've spent the last 30 years solving the short-term problem while ignoring the long term. That's how we got where we are. We need to actually start looking at the long-term consequences of our policies for once. And that's why our debt problem isn't an artificial political issue. Anybody who thinks that hasn't thought this issue through past the next year or so.

Re:Nowhere near that easy

[Mr. Underbridge]

uh.. you didn't really understand what I wrote did you? You don't need to keep interest rates low, in fact you only have some influence over interest rates. As long as your GDP is growing faster than debt (when you have decent employment and so on) then you're fine, and it's not an issue, and you have quite a lot of knobs to turn to keep nominal GDP growing faster than interest on your debt, especially when most of your debt is at a fixed rate for years.

The problem is it never happens that way. You actually have to consider historical context and pretend this isn't the first time we've been through an economic hiccup. Every problem in the last 30 years has been "solved" with spending - the problem is, when the economic ship rights itself, no one wants to do the hard thing and reduce spending or increase taxes. That's why we have a debt that is now 100% of GDP, an increase from about 20% in the pre-Greenspan era. That is a level that has been associated with economic destabilization, and no one seems to care. Our debt ratio is higher than any time except the time immediately surrounding WWII. This is a real problem. Not for the next couple of years, this could be a problem for decades, and probably will if it's not solved.

If you think you have magical knobs to turn to keep GDP growing faster than interest on your debt, you're deludedl. The problem with all your solutions are things like "As long as....". When you build up such an unstable situation, you rely on those things continuing to be true, and when they fail, they fail hard.

other way around. Anyone who thinks now is the time to be worrying about debt is why you've been stuck in a liquidity trap for 4 years when you could have been out of it 3 years ago. Right now *is* the time to borrow more money to get employment going and get jobs created to spur demand to get the economy going. When demand picks back up then you cut those jobs and raise taxes and so on so that you can ride things along while the debt shrinks away.

Sounds lovely. The problem is when it doesn't work, and you end up having jacked up the debt, and your payments on the debt, only to face interest rates that you can't control any more and an unemployment problem that wasn't solved by your spending. In other words, exactly what happened during the "stimulus". Now what do you do?

Here's the thing: the idiots on the fringe on either side are both wrong. Yes, we need to spend money - wisely - in targeted ways to get unemployment down and the tax base up. We also need to do it in a way that isn't going to build a house of cards that will completely destroy the economy with runaway inflation within a decade of the recession ending. Which is why your mindset is dangerous, and that mindset is pervasive in the global economic leadership right now: namely, the notion that we have a lot more control over the global economy than we really do, that we can fix all problems, and that the cure is never worse than the disease. If they were that good at controlling things, we'd never end up with these problems in the first place.

So when you say things that insinuate that our mounting debt poses no long term risk, I have a problem with that. We can't ignore it. No one ever said it's the only problem that should be addressed - a lovely false dichotomy, to be sure - but we certainly can't go back to the Obama stimulus plan (and touted by such luminaries as Krugman) that we just need to spend a lot of money, and it doesn't matter how.

One thing I've found is that, in the long run, economics is simple. And I've also found that people who think they can outwit the basic principles always end up crashing in the end. What I want is to not be in the same boat when it happens.

Re:Nowhere near that easy

[Sir_Sri]

That is a level that has been associated with economic destabilization, and no one seems to care. Our debt ratio is higher than any time except the time immediately surrounding WWII. This is a real problem. Not for the next couple of years, this could be a problem for decades, and probably will if it's not solved.

claiming something is a problem (wrongly) doesn't make it a problem. The UK ran the world with about 100% of GDP in debt for a century. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_debt is tremendously illustrative, and I suggest you look at it. First, 250% of GDP in debt is manageable. Secondly, if you get yourself out of an economic crisis you can manage the debt.

As you (correctly) point out, the US has had much higher debt and managed quite successfully, which is the historical context, in fact that same historical context showed that massive spending and borrowing (ww2) was the way out of a long protracted recession and liquidity trap. Claiming you have some serious problem now despite the problem being half what it was when you manged quite well is making an intellectual pretzel.

The problem is when it doesn't work,

Well your plan demonstrably doesn't work, my plan demonstrably has worked in the past, so odds are it's the plan you should be going with. Clinging to a failed plan isn't helping anyone.

exactly what happened during the "stimulus"

Your assertion, unfortunately, is factually untrue. The stimulus worked about as well as one expected. One short term burst of 700 billion dollars in a crashing economy when it should have been 2 trillion will a very limited effect. It barely stopped the proverbial bleeding, and that's about all you can say for it. When the math says you should spend 2 trillion dollars and you spend a third of that don't turn around and claim the math calling for 2 trillion dollars was bad.

destroy the economy with runaway inflation within a decade of the recession ending.

I realize you're wrongly obsessed with inflation, without any real evidence that inflation will be a problem beyond your gut feeling, but that's not helping your case. Obviously stimulus like the olympics is worse than useless, a mountain of spending that immediately crashes does have an effect but not much of one, and in the end you're left with a bunch of junk you need to get rid of. Building bridges, roads, a space programme or the like can at least leave you with something to show at the end of it.

Obama stimulus plan (and touted by such luminaries as Krugman) that we just need to spend a lot of money, and it doesn't matter how.

Krugman was correct, the stimulus plan was about a third of the size needed at the time, and now that the situation has gotten worse because the stimulus was 1.4 trillion too small in 2009 another 3 trillion or so has been wasted on waffling around, and more will be needed to fix it.

One thing I've found is that, in the long run, economics is simple.

Simple is relative. Economics is inherently hard to test in a vacuum, but you have a series of natural experiments when governments make policies, and assuming you can do differential equations and stats, no, it's not that hard to figure out. And the people who have working predictive models are calling for more spending, and the people with models that predicted 4 years of inflation which didn't materialize are clearly not worth listening to.

insinuate that our mounting debt poses no long term risk, I have a problem with that. We can't ignore it.

Ignore is a strong word. It's not really a problem unless your politicians make it a problem, and it's certainly a manageable one if you bother to deal with it, as it has been dealt with by economies in much worse shape than yours.

Unfortunately you claim economics is simple, but then you base all o

Columbus OH

[the-matt-mobile]

We've weathered 3 tech downturns since I've been in the IT biz without a dent, our housing market didn't have a huge bubble so there wasn't much value lost, and unemploment in IT is near 1% here right now. Everyone's hiring developers. Lived here all my life - weather's decent if you like real snow in winter and heat in the summer, the city is growing and modern, and there's a fair amount to do if you prefer more family-oriented over a single's night life. If you write code, come. We'd love to have you.

Re:Brazil

[joshio]

If I were going to relocate internationally, Brazil would be high on my list (although I don't know what their immigration policy is, and whether it's even possible). I was sent to Sao Paulo and Campinas recently for work, and although I didn't particularly care for Sao Paulo, I found Campinas to be quite beautiful - it would certainly be on my list of possibilities for relocation.

I can say from experience that working with various telcos (Algar, Embratel, GVT) and even the colo we put equipment in (Terremark Sao Paulo) is a serious challenge if you don't speak Portuguese. As more and more foreign companies start to look at Brazil for various reasons, more and more of these Brazilian companies are going to be looking to hire people who can speak both Portuguese and English. From our IT staff we have down there (who speak both Portuguese and English), the differences in salary compared to the US aren't that large, and there are other variances in compensation that make up even some of that difference (for example, they appear to have a lot more holidays and PTO than we do).

As AC mentioned, I did enjoy the slower pace, and everyone seemed fairly happy. Heck, even in the worst traffic in Sao Paulo, I didn't hear that many people blaring their car horns. Unlike places like New York City where almost everyone uses them constantly.

Yes, Brazil still has issues (corruption, poverty, etc) - but every country has issues of some sort. Pick your poison.

My two cents as an expat

[arikol]

I moved countries a few years ago, and even moving within one's own culture area can be hard work. There will be many little legal things and things to do with the system you move to that you need to learn.

As to the question "what is the best country to move to", the answer is based on your expectations of the future, or your goals.

I am a family man and moved with young children. I believe I will stay here in Sweden for the foreseeable future. There are a few reasons for this, many of which have to do not only with my own chances for the future but also for my children:

Good, cheap healthcare
Good efficient social care (not perfect, but pretty good)
Excellent quality schools at all levels
Schools have no tuition fees (paid for with tax money. This applies to universities as well)
Good human rights situation
Good safety (low crime, low accident rates, high survivability) ...and a few more reasons

As you may see many of these reasons include contingency planning. If I should become unable to work I won't lose a chance of a decent life, and the rest of my family continues to have good future prospects. The US scares me mostly because of health care costs and job loss issues, otherwise the US can be seen as a land of opportunity. But lose your health and job in the US and it's not just your problem but also your kids' problem. That's not something I really want to aim for (unless I were to get the kind of wages/income that makes those issues moot).
Scandinavia is excellent for this, but much of Europe is also quite good. The public healthcare systems in most of Europe range between decent and excellent, and the public school systems do likewise. The UK has quite expensive tuition for most higher level schools, and most countries have some private schools that may cost a bit.

So I don't see it as only being about the visible costs of housing and food vs the size of the paycheck as I see many other issues that easily outweigh that. In Sweden I can survive on a very small paycheck, live comfortably on a small paycheck, and live extremely nicely on anything larger all the while knowing that if something gets messed up there is a safety net for myself and my family. I would trade away half my paycheck for this (in the form of taxes and/or a lower total paycheck)

Re:Yes, and a massive one

[theshowmecanuck]

some in the current administration

But as far as that goes, there are some days I wish it were possible to drop an atom bomb on the Pakistan frontiers where the Taliban take up shop. I suppose you think the Taliban are hard done by. Nice people who destroy national (and important to the world) antiquities, force women to wear tents, and shoot them if they see fit, poison school wells because they don't think students, especially girls, should learn anything that isn't in the Koran, etc. etc. etc.

If you can live with yourself implicitly supporting the Taliban, I can live with the drone war on them. It isn't a matter of you're either with me or against me, more you're either part of the problem or you're not. Not providing Afghanistan a look at what the alternative to the Taliban can be by providing schools and support for their fledgling police and government infrastructure just invites the Taliban back. Not preventing the Taliban from killing, poisoning, intimidating, is inviting them back just as much as anything. But of course you have already implied you think theocracies are just fine with you.

Sure you'll spout, let the people decide. How well can you decide anything if someone points a gun at your head? If someone were going to kill you or kill your children if you didn't suck a cock, you'd do it and ask for more. Unless you give the people a break from these thugs, they won't have chance. The Taliban preach their theocracy with a gun barrel. And these Taliban thugs won't stop. Hell just yesterday they attacked a base where the Pakistanis store nuclear weapons. So you'd rather we did nothing a would be OK if religious radicals were in control of nuclear weapons. Are you looking forward to Iran arming Hezbollah with nuclear bombs?

You think trying to do something against these scumbags is warlike? When the Pakistani government not only won't do anything about them often even where forced, but actively if covertly support them (Bin Laden couldn't have set up shop like that without government help). You really think combating these people is warlike? I don't fucking think so.

Chamberlain showed what happens if you choose to avoid a distasteful but needed call to arms. Don't give me any crap about some principle when I say his name, but Hitler could have been stopped early if the leaders hadn't been so afraid to do what needed to be done. Do you know who had the most heavy tanks in Europe in the late 1930s (including 1939/1940 during the phony war)? France; that's who. Not Germany. It had nothing to do with manpower or equipment. Thinking forcible disarmament of Germany was warlike and war mongering caused WWII and the deaths of 11.5 million people in death camps (the Jews weren't the only group thrown in the ovens). It lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousand of soldiers and civilians. It lead to Japan making the Nazi atrocities look like a kids sandbox game when they went into China and the Philippines.

Being forced down the path to war because diplomacy doesn't work, doesn't mean you're warlike. It just just means you do what you have to do. Being warlike means doing something like that when there is no need. Before the invasion in 2001/2002 the Taliban were asked to give up Osama Bin Laden and they said no, they didn't think he did anything wrong. In fact the Taliban government showed themselves complicit by providing training bases for things they knew Bin Laden was up to (terrorism). They were a rogue state in every sense of the word. Never mind a few years before they had fired artillery into 1000 year old massive carvings of Buddha on mountain walls, at least 100 feet tall when many in the world begged them not to... all because of religious principles (that is a good indication of how they think).

You want warlike? Genghis Khan was warlike. Napoleon was warlike. Wehrmacht Germany was warlike.The Khmer Rouge were warlike. Most dictators are warlike. The Taliban are warlike. Stopping those who would kill to forc