Success in Canada means moving to America(thewalrus.ca)
thewalrus.ca
Success in Canada means moving to America
https://thewalrus.ca/why-success-in-canada-means-moving-to-america/
424 comments
>Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior
In small town USA, the local culture usually is inferior. The local culture tends to be very monoculture. It's the larger cities where the culture tends to be more diverse. Getting out of small town into the nearest larger town opened me up to a hell of a lot more than the people that never left. However, even in that larger town, it's still limited. Yes, I eventually went to the west coast to have even more multi-cultural experience. Later, I even got to finally start travelling internationally to expand that multi-cultural experience further.
Maybe it's a broad brush to paint with, but my local culture 100% was inferior, but I imagine it's not unique
In small town USA, the local culture usually is inferior. The local culture tends to be very monoculture. It's the larger cities where the culture tends to be more diverse. Getting out of small town into the nearest larger town opened me up to a hell of a lot more than the people that never left. However, even in that larger town, it's still limited. Yes, I eventually went to the west coast to have even more multi-cultural experience. Later, I even got to finally start travelling internationally to expand that multi-cultural experience further.
Maybe it's a broad brush to paint with, but my local culture 100% was inferior, but I imagine it's not unique
Eh, I've lived in small towns and major cities. One isn't categorically better than the other, they're just different. Your values align better with city life, but that doesn't make other cultures inferior (nor are you superior to the people who prefer them). I certainly appreciate the diversity of larger cities and small towns certainly aren't for me, but I can also appreciate having a functional municipal government, low crime rates, low poverty rates, dramatically less antisocial behavior, strong values / decency / civility, a simpler way of life, etc.
All of those things might be true, but I think what they are meaning by ‘culturally inferior’ is that there is less variety in people, food, and activities. This is simply an inescapable fact of having fewer people. You won’t be able to find as wide a variety of food, or entertainment, or art in a place with fewer people. There simply aren’t enough people to sustain the same level of variety.
I agree that there's less diversity, but conflating diversity with cultural superiority is foolish at best.
I agree that the word ‘superiority’ is loaded and probably not the appropriate term to use when talking about a culture. However, many people use the word ‘culture’ to mean countable things; if someone says a place ‘has a lot of culture’, often times they mean ‘there are many things to do’. In other words, a lot of options when you are choosing what you want to do for your day off, or your evening out.
Just imagine you are planning a night out with friends. As someone who grew up in a small town, our options were very limited. You could go to the movies, the bowling alley, or go to someone’s house. If you wanted dinner, there were only a few restaurants serving a small variety of cuisines. It would be impossible to do a different thing every night for more than a week or so.
In a big city, you could do something different every night and not run out of different things to do for years. You could eat a different restaurant every night, eating a completely different cuisine each time.
If you are simply counting things to do, a city is ‘superior’.
Just imagine you are planning a night out with friends. As someone who grew up in a small town, our options were very limited. You could go to the movies, the bowling alley, or go to someone’s house. If you wanted dinner, there were only a few restaurants serving a small variety of cuisines. It would be impossible to do a different thing every night for more than a week or so.
In a big city, you could do something different every night and not run out of different things to do for years. You could eat a different restaurant every night, eating a completely different cuisine each time.
If you are simply counting things to do, a city is ‘superior’.
(not the OP, but somebody who's lived in both big cities and small towns and loved them both for different reasons)
I get what you're saying and agree to some degree. But at the same time, i think it's actually the last line ("if you're simply counting things to do") that I would personally quibble over as the sacred metric of what's better than the other.
Maybe some people don't really care about having ten gazillion different restaurants and would prefer at least three solid parks/hiking trails you can't get around some big cities? Maybe some folks would be more than happy to trade going to the theatres with having a home with 5+ acres to raise a chicken farm or other critters on, or if not that then at least the privacy and the minimal light pollution.
Some trades that people are willing to make kinda aren't so obvious.
I get what you're saying and agree to some degree. But at the same time, i think it's actually the last line ("if you're simply counting things to do") that I would personally quibble over as the sacred metric of what's better than the other.
Maybe some people don't really care about having ten gazillion different restaurants and would prefer at least three solid parks/hiking trails you can't get around some big cities? Maybe some folks would be more than happy to trade going to the theatres with having a home with 5+ acres to raise a chicken farm or other critters on, or if not that then at least the privacy and the minimal light pollution.
Some trades that people are willing to make kinda aren't so obvious.
I agree, which is why I mentioned the problem with the word ‘superior’, since there is no objective measure of what is a better culture. I was just trying to say their are objective differences.
Therea are good things about small towns, some of which you named, but some is idyllic fantasy:
> / decency / civility
That hasn't been my experience in small towns recently, unless you happen to fit in well with the people there. There's a highly aggressive paranoia and acting out.
> functional municipal government
They are almost powerless, IME. How small a town are you talking about?
> / decency / civility
That hasn't been my experience in small towns recently, unless you happen to fit in well with the people there. There's a highly aggressive paranoia and acting out.
> functional municipal government
They are almost powerless, IME. How small a town are you talking about?
Small town culture is a thing in Europe as well! I don't know if it's inferior but it's certainly different from the culture in a bigger city.
Right, but the fun part is an American from a big city like New York will go visit some quaint rural town in a foreign country and admire the culture. Despite the locals feeling it's inferior and the big city 200 km away has superior culture.
Just goes to show it's all subjective.
Just goes to show it's all subjective.
European towns and villages often have many centuries, possibly millennia, of history. That at the very least adds depth.
Few American cities were founded > 200 years ago. None were founded more than 1565 (United States), and the oldest dates from 1502, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
That said, what a New Yorker visiting small-town Europe is probably referencing is the contrast between NYC and Small European Town. The specific town will likely be largely interchangeable with numerous others of similar description.
By contrast, a small town in the US or Canada largely resembles some of the less-distinguished suburbs of NYC itself: same language, same government, same mass media, same history, same chain stores and franchises. Far fewer people, however, and a much smaller economic and cultural ambit.
Even for small towns in which there is some distinctive culture ... it tends to be a single motif which dominates the entire town, rather than the melting pot of a major metropolis. Marfa, TX; Silver City, NM; Santa Fe, NM; Asheland, OR; and Napa, CA all have distinctive cultures, but it tends to be all-of-a-type.
Exceptions tend to be smaller college towns, for obvious reasons, but even here, the odds for highly-diverse communities tend to be lower than in larger cosmopolitan cities. And you can climb far up the major metro region and still find fairly stultified culture --- Chicago, IL, wears its "second city" moniker as a badge, but you'll still find there's some real edginess there about it if you press a bit or scratch beneath the surface. (The fact that it's third by size, and that Los Angeles also evinces a somewhat similar attitude toward New York doesn't help.)
Few American cities were founded > 200 years ago. None were founded more than 1565 (United States), and the oldest dates from 1502, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
That said, what a New Yorker visiting small-town Europe is probably referencing is the contrast between NYC and Small European Town. The specific town will likely be largely interchangeable with numerous others of similar description.
By contrast, a small town in the US or Canada largely resembles some of the less-distinguished suburbs of NYC itself: same language, same government, same mass media, same history, same chain stores and franchises. Far fewer people, however, and a much smaller economic and cultural ambit.
Even for small towns in which there is some distinctive culture ... it tends to be a single motif which dominates the entire town, rather than the melting pot of a major metropolis. Marfa, TX; Silver City, NM; Santa Fe, NM; Asheland, OR; and Napa, CA all have distinctive cultures, but it tends to be all-of-a-type.
Exceptions tend to be smaller college towns, for obvious reasons, but even here, the odds for highly-diverse communities tend to be lower than in larger cosmopolitan cities. And you can climb far up the major metro region and still find fairly stultified culture --- Chicago, IL, wears its "second city" moniker as a badge, but you'll still find there's some real edginess there about it if you press a bit or scratch beneath the surface. (The fact that it's third by size, and that Los Angeles also evinces a somewhat similar attitude toward New York doesn't help.)
Your entire premise seems to hinge on history being equivalent to culture.
I mean, NYC has a ton of culture but it's a young city.
I disagree with you premise.
I mean, NYC has a ton of culture but it's a young city.
I disagree with you premise.
"That at the very least adds depth" would suggest otherwise.
And if it's not what I managed to communicate effectively, I can assure you it is not at all my intended meaning.
Which would then falisify your own premise.
And if it's not what I managed to communicate effectively, I can assure you it is not at all my intended meaning.
Which would then falisify your own premise.
I mean history might add to culture, maybe.
But I’d argue NYC has more culture than say Edinburgh, Scotland despite the later having a far more extensive history.
But I’d argue NYC has more culture than say Edinburgh, Scotland despite the later having a far more extensive history.
Again, not inconsistent with my viewpoint.
Contrast though US cities of roughly comparable population (506,000 for Edinburgh), say, Sacramento, CA; Kansas City, MO; Mesa, AZ; or Atlanta, GA. Two of those are also state capitals, roughly matching Edinburgh's political status.
Remmeber that size was another key factor. Again, not sole, but key.
Global cities ratings gives additional ratings and bases for same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
GWAC ranks Edinburgh above all of the US cities, save Atlanta, which is just above it. Mesa and Sacramento are not ranked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities...
Contrast though US cities of roughly comparable population (506,000 for Edinburgh), say, Sacramento, CA; Kansas City, MO; Mesa, AZ; or Atlanta, GA. Two of those are also state capitals, roughly matching Edinburgh's political status.
Remmeber that size was another key factor. Again, not sole, but key.
Global cities ratings gives additional ratings and bases for same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
GWAC ranks Edinburgh above all of the US cities, save Atlanta, which is just above it. Mesa and Sacramento are not ranked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities...
mmmmmjgcc(9)
>” Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.”
For additional evidence, the setting of most of “Breaking Bad” (now continuing as “Better Call Saul”) in Albuquerque, New Mexico led to meaningful economic benefits for people living there, such as increased tourism (from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-xpm-2013-a...).
For additional evidence, the setting of most of “Breaking Bad” (now continuing as “Better Call Saul”) in Albuquerque, New Mexico led to meaningful economic benefits for people living there, such as increased tourism (from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-xpm-2013-a...).
That’s surprising, watching those shows did not make me interested in going even a little bit
Having been to and through those regions I agree, I would not want to vacation or visit there without good reason. However, the show(s) made it seem like a fairly quiet and comfortable region (barring the cartels and drug addictions). Other than certain desert scenes, they really didn't do the environment justice; I rarely felt like long-sleeved Oxford shirt-wearing Walter or suit-wearing Jimmy/Saul were sweating constantly, which contradicted my own experiences, and I've been there in all months of the year. It does get chilly, as any desert/scrub land region does, but it felt a little off. I have the same issue with all the Dune adaptations, they just never really get across the temperature and/or humidity of the place unless it's relevant to a plot point.
>I imagine in Europe, it's probably Paris and London that draws both French/British and foreigners.
Lol no. Most people go in Paris because it's where they can found a job opportunity or for studies but wouldn't have otherwise, and a whole part of the country (which I belong too) view it has a place to actively avoid for living. And I can't think of anyone that's hated more outside of Paris than Parisians.
Lol no. Most people go in Paris because it's where they can found a job opportunity or for studies but wouldn't have otherwise, and a whole part of the country (which I belong too) view it has a place to actively avoid for living. And I can't think of anyone that's hated more outside of Paris than Parisians.
For software engineers in Europe is Dublin, Berlin and London.
I'm one of the few that made it all the way to California.
I've been always the guy trying to push fellow software engineers to go to the USA. Even though I lasted in the Silicon Valley only a year before quitting my full-time job and becoming a digital nomad and boostrapping my own SaaS company https://www.waiterio.com
My dream was to go to California too when I started studying computer science. Then I learned about employment laws, health care and social security in the US. As a person that had close experience how important these things are when things go wrong even though you might've been a millionaire, I feel pretty confident with my choice to stay in Europe.
To anyone that thinks these things don't matter if you earn enough money and safe a fair amount, I wish that they and especially their children never get into a situation that shows them how naive that thought was.
To anyone that thinks these things don't matter if you earn enough money and safe a fair amount, I wish that they and especially their children never get into a situation that shows them how naive that thought was.
That doesn't compute.
If you work for, say, a FAANG company, you have pretty solid healthcare. Social security is surely limited, but there's good benefits for disability and so on.
The amount of money you can make in the US as an experienced engineer is probably 5 fold if not more. Senior engineers are easily pulling 7 figures here, which means even taking into account your cost-of-living, you'll end up fairly ahead.
If you work for, say, a FAANG company, you have pretty solid healthcare. Social security is surely limited, but there's good benefits for disability and so on.
The amount of money you can make in the US as an experienced engineer is probably 5 fold if not more. Senior engineers are easily pulling 7 figures here, which means even taking into account your cost-of-living, you'll end up fairly ahead.
> Senior engineers are easily pulling 7 figures here, which means even taking into account your cost-of-living, you'll end up fairly ahead.
senior engineers are not "easily pulling" that amount anywhere. that's way outside the senior engineer band at FAANGs/unicorns. you need to be at staff/principal level to get outside of the mid six figures, which is very hard even if you already have a job at one of those companies.
that said, I do kinda agree otherwise. if you are making $200k (typical senior at normal company, between junior/mid-level at FAANG) and are a remotely frugal person, it would take a very unlucky series of events to get to "broke". the risk exists, but from a strictly materialistic viewpoint, the increased upside more than makes up for it.
senior engineers are not "easily pulling" that amount anywhere. that's way outside the senior engineer band at FAANGs/unicorns. you need to be at staff/principal level to get outside of the mid six figures, which is very hard even if you already have a job at one of those companies.
that said, I do kinda agree otherwise. if you are making $200k (typical senior at normal company, between junior/mid-level at FAANG) and are a remotely frugal person, it would take a very unlucky series of events to get to "broke". the risk exists, but from a strictly materialistic viewpoint, the increased upside more than makes up for it.
Yup, expected value is much more. 200k tend to be near starting band these days, and within 5-6 years where you tend to be the healthiest in your life assuming new grad, you can reach 600+ band.
> If you work for, say, a FAANG company, you have pretty solid healthcare.
While you're employed. For how many days of sickness does your contract say do they have to keep you employed? Isn't it even employment at will?
I don't wanna enter this discussion further. I'm just gonna finish with that I experienced first hand someone making what's today nearly a million a year (in Germany no less!) and ending up on social security within a few years due to sickness and bad investment. And that's with universal health care. A good job, high earnings and decent savings give you leeway, but they will not protect you from tragedy and even more important they will not protect your kids from tragedy that have no fault in whatever happens.
While you're employed. For how many days of sickness does your contract say do they have to keep you employed? Isn't it even employment at will?
I don't wanna enter this discussion further. I'm just gonna finish with that I experienced first hand someone making what's today nearly a million a year (in Germany no less!) and ending up on social security within a few years due to sickness and bad investment. And that's with universal health care. A good job, high earnings and decent savings give you leeway, but they will not protect you from tragedy and even more important they will not protect your kids from tragedy that have no fault in whatever happens.
Not extending the discussion (I’m not the parent commenter), but I think your argument highlights the cultural differences that exist in an interesting way. In the US, independence, self-reliance and optimism are a much bigger part of the common culture. You are considering only worst case scenarios and assuming that the state is the only thing you can rely on. Consider how your view would be different with a more optimistic view of your own luck/ability to recover, and a more pessimistic view of government.
Could you go leave us for Germany and still get healthcare there? I don't know, just asking.
I am not usually planning for worst case and i tend to be optimist, i have a working spouse and i make decent money, and my plan is to be buried here in the US, but if shit hits the fan, and i can no longer work, i will still have healthcare through wife. Even worse case i can always go back to turkey. It's hard but not impossible to make such life changes.
I am not usually planning for worst case and i tend to be optimist, i have a working spouse and i make decent money, and my plan is to be buried here in the US, but if shit hits the fan, and i can no longer work, i will still have healthcare through wife. Even worse case i can always go back to turkey. It's hard but not impossible to make such life changes.
> The amount of money you can make in the US as an experienced engineer is probably 5 fold if not more. Senior engineers are easily pulling 7 figures here
This statement is inaccurate for most people.
The salaries for H1B visa holders are actually public [1] and starting salaries for foreigners are more 100k to 200k and nowhere close to 7 figures.
Also the salary levels at FAANGs are mostly known [2] and you have to get very, very far up to even make 7 figures at a fang. An L6 (staff engineer) makes 500k total comp.
[1] https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=Software&city=San+Fra...
[2] https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Amazon,SAP,Google&track=Soft...
This statement is inaccurate for most people.
The salaries for H1B visa holders are actually public [1] and starting salaries for foreigners are more 100k to 200k and nowhere close to 7 figures.
Also the salary levels at FAANGs are mostly known [2] and you have to get very, very far up to even make 7 figures at a fang. An L6 (staff engineer) makes 500k total comp.
[1] https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=Software&city=San+Fra...
[2] https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Amazon,SAP,Google&track=Soft...
When I say senior engineer, i don't mean e5 senior engineer. You can get there within a year or two. You can get to e6 in what it takes to do PhD.
Well, you can also stay at L5 forever. It's a terminal level afterall. L6 typically needs at least 9 years of experience and the majority of people will never reach it. And at L6 you make half of 7 figures.
L5 still make great money and it is a multiple of what you get outside of SV. Just inflating to 7 figures is a bit exaggerated
Edit: this comment from 6 months ago provides a bit of inside view on getting L6 at Google https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965492
L5 still make great money and it is a multiple of what you get outside of SV. Just inflating to 7 figures is a bit exaggerated
Edit: this comment from 6 months ago provides a bit of inside view on getting L6 at Google https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965492
Sure. But i think it takes less than 9 to reach to 6 too. Depends on how much you care about it, i suppose (let's say you are really good at what you do, but you may be at e5 because you never cared and your manager never cared either - this sort of stuff happens too).
H1Bs pull the same salaries as everyone else, always the real money is in equity.
[deleted]
So if something goes tragically wrong and you're unable to do your job not only do you lose your source of income you also lose your healthcare.
I know drastically inflated incomes is the lingua franca of online discussion, but "easily pulling 7 figures" is a bit much, don't you think?
I know drastically inflated incomes is the lingua franca of online discussion, but "easily pulling 7 figures" is a bit much, don't you think?
Do you always plan for the worst case? If this is true, could you simply take your money and go back to your home country and still reasonably live there?
I don't always plan for the worst case, I tend to be optimistic, and if something bad comes up, i improvise.
Also if you are a family and your spouse works, this is some sort of hedging for the scenario you mentioned.
I don't always plan for the worst case, I tend to be optimistic, and if something bad comes up, i improvise.
Also if you are a family and your spouse works, this is some sort of hedging for the scenario you mentioned.
The giorgioz comment chain starts from considering all software engineers in Europe moving to US, but then is narrowed down by your definition of 'you' (when i think you mean 'I'), in that 'you' all your examples use, is a person who 1. has a wife with a steady job in US with good health benefits, 2. can achieve senior engineering level E6 in FAANG in 1-2 years... This is immediately like dropping the discussion down to 0.01% of the original chain lol
Fair, but you are over-exaggerating.
Here is what it looks like. - I started working in 2012.
- I didn't come here married
- I married another Turkish woman a few years later, she couldn't work until she were able to get EAD which was probably around 2015/6. H1B spouses couldn't work at the time.
- We got audited for our greencard, and there were frictions in the process for whatever reason. It was no where near as bad as it is for an Indian - we were still able to complete it in about 2 years.
- During greencard process, she got EAD, it took a bit of time as a foreigner educated/non-engineer person find a FTE job. This meant she was on a contract job to build her US resume, and she had to renew every 6 months or so. It is fairly stressful for a person at the beginning of her career in a foreign country and you have to provide support. It also didn't allow us a backup healthcare in case I was out of work.
- I didn't get to 6 in 1-2 years, it took 4, and that was on the faster side at google. It could have been faster at FB, but that's not the point.
All of these are progression in life, nothing is given to you. You can't assume the worst case, because in the worst case everyone is dead tomorrow.
I took a bet to come to US(after a US school, on H1B). I didn't think of what'd have happened if i lost my job, i don't really stress over one of us losing job anymore. If it happens, we deal with it. We always have.
Risk and consequences of losing everything early on is much lower. You don't have expenses, you don't have dependents. You take a bet, and you start building a life. This is why I suggest everyone to do it as soon as possible if they want to leave their home countries.
You start reducing your risk in some things (by getting married) while you increase risk in some others (like getting a bad divorce etc), you add more financial stress if you have a kid, but you have other joys you add through it and so on.
This is not a me story, this is a story that's replicable for most people in FAANG jobs...
Here is what it looks like. - I started working in 2012.
- I didn't come here married
- I married another Turkish woman a few years later, she couldn't work until she were able to get EAD which was probably around 2015/6. H1B spouses couldn't work at the time.
- We got audited for our greencard, and there were frictions in the process for whatever reason. It was no where near as bad as it is for an Indian - we were still able to complete it in about 2 years.
- During greencard process, she got EAD, it took a bit of time as a foreigner educated/non-engineer person find a FTE job. This meant she was on a contract job to build her US resume, and she had to renew every 6 months or so. It is fairly stressful for a person at the beginning of her career in a foreign country and you have to provide support. It also didn't allow us a backup healthcare in case I was out of work.
- I didn't get to 6 in 1-2 years, it took 4, and that was on the faster side at google. It could have been faster at FB, but that's not the point.
All of these are progression in life, nothing is given to you. You can't assume the worst case, because in the worst case everyone is dead tomorrow.
I took a bet to come to US(after a US school, on H1B). I didn't think of what'd have happened if i lost my job, i don't really stress over one of us losing job anymore. If it happens, we deal with it. We always have.
Risk and consequences of losing everything early on is much lower. You don't have expenses, you don't have dependents. You take a bet, and you start building a life. This is why I suggest everyone to do it as soon as possible if they want to leave their home countries.
You start reducing your risk in some things (by getting married) while you increase risk in some others (like getting a bad divorce etc), you add more financial stress if you have a kid, but you have other joys you add through it and so on.
This is not a me story, this is a story that's replicable for most people in FAANG jobs...
Do I plan for the worst case? No, but I take it into consideration.
But healthcare is just as long as you work for that FAANG.
Once you are out, you are on your own. Not so in Germany.
Once you are out, you are on your own. Not so in Germany.
No it's not just FAANG. Just FAANG literally imply only Facebook Apple Amazon Netflix and Google offer healthcare. So I need to find only one more company that does offer healtcare to disprove you.
And I'll name Intel where I worked.
But likely all companies with 50+ employees offer you healthcare.
Also healthcare is not so expensive given the salary you receive.
The problem of private healthcare is a serious problem related to people in the USA earning 0-50.000$ a year. After that private healthcare paid in advance costs few hundred dollars per month and you can definitely afford it with a software engineer salary.
I quit a FAANG job, purchased insurance, and it was pretty easy—just a couple clicks. Are you saying the government auto-enrolls you in Germany?
> Are you saying the government auto-enrolls you in Germany?
Kinda. Healthcare is not provided by your employers, but by health care insurances. It is generally mandatory to be insured. The system is split in universal healthcare (payed as a percentage of your salary) and private healthcare (payed from your bank account). Anyone self-employed and earning above a certain threshold can opt to leave the government system and buy private healthcare (gives somewhat better treatment, most notably faster appointments at specialists, as they earn 3-5 times on a privately insured patient). When you leave an employer you remain in the system you were in before. If you were privately insured and end up on social security you will be moved to the government system and they will cover healthcare costs for you.
The issue is with "purchasing" insurance. a) you need money, b) what does the health insurance say when you wanna get insurance while having acute expensive health issues?
Getting insurance when you are healthy and have money is easy.
Kinda. Healthcare is not provided by your employers, but by health care insurances. It is generally mandatory to be insured. The system is split in universal healthcare (payed as a percentage of your salary) and private healthcare (payed from your bank account). Anyone self-employed and earning above a certain threshold can opt to leave the government system and buy private healthcare (gives somewhat better treatment, most notably faster appointments at specialists, as they earn 3-5 times on a privately insured patient). When you leave an employer you remain in the system you were in before. If you were privately insured and end up on social security you will be moved to the government system and they will cover healthcare costs for you.
The issue is with "purchasing" insurance. a) you need money, b) what does the health insurance say when you wanna get insurance while having acute expensive health issues?
Getting insurance when you are healthy and have money is easy.
Do you get healthcare when you are not making any money?
I'm not sure which situation you are asking about, but generally if you are not earning money and can't afford health care, you should qualify for social security and that covers healthcare, rent, basic needs. In general it's mandatory to have health insurance and changes in employment status don't affect your insurance status. Though it's possible to end up uninsured when you are unable/unwilling to pay, but also do not apply for social security payments (however I believe that's more an active choice than a real risk).
As a student for example it's mandatory to get insurance to be enrolled in university. Cost for students that are no longer covered by parents (above age 24 iirc) is close to 100€ per month.
As a student for example it's mandatory to get insurance to be enrolled in university. Cost for students that are no longer covered by parents (above age 24 iirc) is close to 100€ per month.
I think I'm more talking about the worst worst case i can think of.
A citizen of EU, coming to US, working and making good money, and somehow lose the ability to work. Could they go back, and continue to live reasonable life there without having to worry about things that they normally wouldnt if they haven't come to us in the first place?
A citizen of EU, coming to US, working and making good money, and somehow lose the ability to work. Could they go back, and continue to live reasonable life there without having to worry about things that they normally wouldnt if they haven't come to us in the first place?
I honestly don't know what will happen if I lived for an extended period of time abroad and come back. It might be a reasonable backup plan, but I also don't fancy the idea to uproot my life and lose my social circle when shit hits the fan. Also what if you're divorced and have kids? The situation can quickly get complex with kids not even allowed to leave the state.
I'm not trying to say going to the US is a bad choice, just that there are very sensible reasons not to go that are often overlooked by optimism and my personal experience will always remind me of that.
I'm not trying to say going to the US is a bad choice, just that there are very sensible reasons not to go that are often overlooked by optimism and my personal experience will always remind me of that.
Thanks - it's definitely not an ideal case, but so is losing your ability to work. It feels like a decent back up plan.
At some point around your thirties, you will probably be married. Your spouse's health care could help hedging for this case, and you can always go back to your home country and utilize what's available to you.
i was on cobra for first 3 months and got onto to obamacare after.
Software engineers that go to the USA do the H1B visa which only very big employers can offer. Those big employers always offer very good health care plans. You are compensated far more than you would earn in Europe so being laid off is not a problem given with one month salary you can leave off for several months and you will have plenty of other employers trying to hire you given you already have the H1B visa.
Can’t you just go back if things go wrong? I don’t understand why your downside isn’t limited.
Never heard anyone in Germany dreaming of going to Berlin to "make it" as a software engineer, as if there was a mythical Silicon Valley-like atmosphere of opportunity. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm missing out!
You can go for that Berlin lifestyle and to work in some neat startups (as an underpaid employee) but that's not the canonical definition for succcess imo.
You can go for that Berlin lifestyle and to work in some neat startups (as an underpaid employee) but that's not the canonical definition for succcess imo.
"Some man's trash is another man's treasure".
Plus many young people in their 20s like to live in cool places. Berlin is cool. It's underground, it's edgy, new things are tried, clubs are cool.
It's a big city and there are many startup jobs.
You're talking from a very German centric point of view ;)
But it is true that most startups are in Berlin, even non-German ones open technical offices there. And it's also true that the average German has little interest in going there.
But it is true that most startups are in Berlin, even non-German ones open technical offices there. And it's also true that the average German has little interest in going there.
I met plenty of foreigners in software jobs all around Germany, aspiring to and usually achieving that sweet German middle class life; I have not noticed any aspirations from them of heading to Berlin.
I think the dream of finding ambitious and cool people in a hot location and succeed with a true startup, i.e. not something backed or done by people who are already successful or well connected is dead anyway even in Silicon Valley and never really existed anywhere else. Over there however you still have those mystical FAANG salaries...
Dublin and London might be different from Irish and English perspective, respectively.
I think the dream of finding ambitious and cool people in a hot location and succeed with a true startup, i.e. not something backed or done by people who are already successful or well connected is dead anyway even in Silicon Valley and never really existed anywhere else. Over there however you still have those mystical FAANG salaries...
Dublin and London might be different from Irish and English perspective, respectively.
> I have not noticed any aspirations from them of heading to Berlin.
Yes, the profile of the people that go to Berlin is different from people who'll go to a software job somewhere else in Germany. Very rarely you'll have that situation of someone going internally to Berlin. I might say that Berlin have few engineering offices of the biggest (non-Berlin centered) German companies.
> I think the dream of finding ambitious and cool people in a hot location and succeed with a true startup, i.e. not something backed or done by people who are already successful or well connected is dead anyway even in Silicon Valley and never really existed anywhere else.
Very possible. But the cultural draw of Berlin is much bigger than SV. Hands down.
Dublin and London also attract some profiles (given the companies that go there) but not many people think Dublin is the coolest city.
Yes, the profile of the people that go to Berlin is different from people who'll go to a software job somewhere else in Germany. Very rarely you'll have that situation of someone going internally to Berlin. I might say that Berlin have few engineering offices of the biggest (non-Berlin centered) German companies.
> I think the dream of finding ambitious and cool people in a hot location and succeed with a true startup, i.e. not something backed or done by people who are already successful or well connected is dead anyway even in Silicon Valley and never really existed anywhere else.
Very possible. But the cultural draw of Berlin is much bigger than SV. Hands down.
Dublin and London also attract some profiles (given the companies that go there) but not many people think Dublin is the coolest city.
Well, now I feel that I might have missed out on something during my wandering years...
If you have any tips to get to the US as a European, I’d be happy to hear them.
If needed, my email is in my profile.
If needed, my email is in my profile.
Shortest path is working for one of the FAANG companies, and requesting internal transfer to US.
This basically skips the daunting process that's H1B lottery.
This basically skips the daunting process that's H1B lottery.
Marrying an American is probably the quickest and easiest way. You're not allowed to work on a K1 Visa, but once you're married your spouse can apply for a green card for you and right now there isn't much wait for green cards for America spouses - friend of mine's wife got hers in about five months after they got married.
I’ll humor this idea.
What city is the best to find someone who is/has:
Open to new experiences and concepts (museums, art, dancing, music) <— literally the “openness to experience” on the big 5
High cognitive ability
Into meditation, yoga and exercise?
Somewhat into gaming and anime? (Optional)
Somewhat of a programmer or (game) designer/related (optional)
What city is the best to find someone who is/has:
Open to new experiences and concepts (museums, art, dancing, music) <— literally the “openness to experience” on the big 5
High cognitive ability
Into meditation, yoga and exercise?
Somewhat into gaming and anime? (Optional)
Somewhat of a programmer or (game) designer/related (optional)
Make friends with some Americans online, like in an online game or roleplaying forum or whatever. Visit the USA on a vacation and have them introduce you to their sisters/friends/whoever
It's really hard to get that marriage green card though, you're looking at many months of paperwork on top of building a successful relationship and committing your life to someone. I think it'd be a lot easier to get a job at a big company in the US and come over on an H1B, or build a SaaS business wherever you live now
It's really hard to get that marriage green card though, you're looking at many months of paperwork on top of building a successful relationship and committing your life to someone. I think it'd be a lot easier to get a job at a big company in the US and come over on an H1B, or build a SaaS business wherever you live now
I'm going to assume you're M looking for F?
Generally, any big East Coast city. NYC, Atlanta, Washington DC, Chicago, and Boston would be top of mind.
Generally, any big East Coast city. NYC, Atlanta, Washington DC, Chicago, and Boston would be top of mind.
Right assumption, thanks :)
This is true, but you need to really make sure your intent is to really marry, and not marry for greencard purposes which is fraud.
Certainly, yes! I am sorry if I didn't make that clear. Not only should you actually be in love/want to marry to avoid fraud but also for your own well-being.
The United States has an adult population of 258.3 million, so it's likely you'd find someone to fall in love with if you're really looking.
I have some experience here, I have a double digit amount of family members who came to the US to marry into my family, including my brother-in-law. With one exception they are all very happy marriages, the longest lasting 3 decades. There were some who were definitely were looking to marry Americans to immigrate, but the relationship is still real.
The United States has an adult population of 258.3 million, so it's likely you'd find someone to fall in love with if you're really looking.
I have some experience here, I have a double digit amount of family members who came to the US to marry into my family, including my brother-in-law. With one exception they are all very happy marriages, the longest lasting 3 decades. There were some who were definitely were looking to marry Americans to immigrate, but the relationship is still real.
[deleted]
Americans are a great bunch. Contrary to popular (outsider) view, I think american family bond is very strong.
A path I have seen many people take, and one I'm going to take soon, is to work at a US tech company (not necessarily FAANG, lots of largish companies do this) and transfer internally from Europe to the US. There is no lottery for L1B visas, so it's usually hassle free compared to that H1B mess.
L1B visas can also convert to green cards at some point, but I have no idea how easy that is (probably not easy at all).
L1B visas can also convert to green cards at some point, but I have no idea how easy that is (probably not easy at all).
> L1B visas can also convert to green cards at some point, but I have no idea how easy that is (probably not easy at all).
False. L1B is not related to Green Card in any way. You can get the employer to petiton you for a green card while working on L1B.
False. L1B is not related to Green Card in any way. You can get the employer to petiton you for a green card while working on L1B.
L1 is related to green card in the sense that with some statuses, you can never get a green card, but with L1 you can.
That’s called dual intent.
I internally transferred (with my family) from the UK to California in late 2016 and secured a green card in early 2020.
What's so attractive about Dublin, Berlin and London? I've never seen them as remotely interesting for devs. London is for sleazy bankers.
Dublin, a lot of US companies have European headquarters in Dublin.
The salary is higher than other EU cities.
The cost is higher but if you are in your 20s without kids you can save a lot more than what would save in other cheaper cities with lower salaries.
London is big, there are A LOT of things in London.
Yes there are more sleazy bankers in London than other places, but London is big, there are lot of things there, don't simplify things that much.
It's NOT like 100% of people in Switzerland are only making watches and swiss army knives.
Well there's not a great deal going on in somewhere like the middle of the Forest of Dean as far as software engineering challenges go - you do tend to have to go where businesses are solving problems.. even in a more remote culture the base for companies will be near big cities because big cities are near transport links.
I can only speak for London, but:
* Salary
* Way more opportunities
* Big city life, especially attractive to me, since I grew up in a rural, isolated farming town
It's the same story as the last 200 years of industrialisation and urbanisation.
* Salary
* Way more opportunities
* Big city life, especially attractive to me, since I grew up in a rural, isolated farming town
It's the same story as the last 200 years of industrialisation and urbanisation.
Thank you. For software, it's San Francisco, not Los Angeles, that is Mecca in the US.
Los Angeles has its own prominent startup scene as well if you’re looking for that kind of lifestyle.
> It's something I've lamented before: Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.
This reminds me of how Americans are brainwashed into believing that European culture is dramatically better than American culture (Americans are dumb, fat, ignorant, and uncultured while Europeans are intelligent and enlightened). This seems to have eased as our world has become more interconnected, but about a decade ago (before living abroad), this was definitely the impression I had from American media. I'm sure there's some truth to it in certain statistical abstractions, but in general there's enormous variety in America that a comparison of medians doesn't capture. Moreover, there's a lot of cherry-picking that goes on in those comparisons: for instance, I'd never heard any discussion about the significant (~30-50%) discrepancy in take-home (i.e., after tax, healthcare, pension/retirement, etc) income for professionals nor the high cost of living in Europe. Certainly nothing that could feasibly justify stereotypes of American inferiority.
This reminds me of how Americans are brainwashed into believing that European culture is dramatically better than American culture (Americans are dumb, fat, ignorant, and uncultured while Europeans are intelligent and enlightened). This seems to have eased as our world has become more interconnected, but about a decade ago (before living abroad), this was definitely the impression I had from American media. I'm sure there's some truth to it in certain statistical abstractions, but in general there's enormous variety in America that a comparison of medians doesn't capture. Moreover, there's a lot of cherry-picking that goes on in those comparisons: for instance, I'd never heard any discussion about the significant (~30-50%) discrepancy in take-home (i.e., after tax, healthcare, pension/retirement, etc) income for professionals nor the high cost of living in Europe. Certainly nothing that could feasibly justify stereotypes of American inferiority.
I don't get the link between income and culture here? It feels like you should have ended your post before bringing that up.
I probably wasn't clear, but I was remarking about the belief that European culture and social systems were superior. How much a person takes home is related to the quality of those social systems (it's definitely not the only indicator, but it's one that isn't discussed often).
>discrepancy in take-home
I think that has more to do with the discrepancy in time at work though as well. If I make half as much as someone working 60-70 hour weeks (as someone who works 35 hour weeks), that makes a lot of sense.
I think that has more to do with the discrepancy in time at work though as well. If I make half as much as someone working 60-70 hour weeks (as someone who works 35 hour weeks), that makes a lot of sense.
According to some quick Googling, this seems unlikely (see below). Europeans do get more paid time off than Americans, but I doubt they're working 30-40% less than Americans.
> The average number of weekly hours worked by full-time workers in the European Union was 37.1 hours a week as of the third quarter of 2021
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197097/average-working-...
> For those [Americans] in the typical age range for full-time work, the national average landed at 40.5, indicating that most employed adults work a 40-hour workweek
https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-work-hours-per-week/
> The average number of weekly hours worked by full-time workers in the European Union was 37.1 hours a week as of the third quarter of 2021
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197097/average-working-...
> For those [Americans] in the typical age range for full-time work, the national average landed at 40.5, indicating that most employed adults work a 40-hour workweek
https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-work-hours-per-week/
New York, New York is a film by Martin Scorcese, with a famous song composed by John Kander and Fred Ebb, and performed by Liza Minnelli.
I will grant you that Sinatra's performance is strong, distinctive, even a bit better known. But he stands behind several eminent artists on this one.
I will grant you that Sinatra's performance is strong, distinctive, even a bit better known. But he stands behind several eminent artists on this one.
> Lots of Americans dream of either LA or New York, depending on their industry.
I was going to post the same thing. What the OP describes is the same in much of the US.
> Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.
There is something to it: People who are ambitious, confident, and talented tend to want to be around similar people - it gives them opportunities to do more - and around other resources such as financing, leading organizations in their industry, etc. The motivated ones tend to go to NY, etc. So the talent level and resources are generally greater. Seriously, what would you tell a highly ambitious, talented coder in a small town in the middle of Nebraska? Stay where you are? Even in the days of remote work, that seems insane.
> Though I wish we did a better job of fostering diversity of views from other places even within the US.
Agreed.
I was going to post the same thing. What the OP describes is the same in much of the US.
> Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.
There is something to it: People who are ambitious, confident, and talented tend to want to be around similar people - it gives them opportunities to do more - and around other resources such as financing, leading organizations in their industry, etc. The motivated ones tend to go to NY, etc. So the talent level and resources are generally greater. Seriously, what would you tell a highly ambitious, talented coder in a small town in the middle of Nebraska? Stay where you are? Even in the days of remote work, that seems insane.
> Though I wish we did a better job of fostering diversity of views from other places even within the US.
Agreed.
Seriously, what would you tell a highly ambitious, talented coder in a small town in the middle of Nebraska? Stay where you are?
I'm trying to make a different point than people seem to think I'm making. I have absolutely no idea how to clarify that in comments here. I'm trying to sort my thoughts on the topic elsewhere, which likely means a blog post that likely won't be seen by over 30 people.
I'm trying to make a different point than people seem to think I'm making. I have absolutely no idea how to clarify that in comments here. I'm trying to sort my thoughts on the topic elsewhere, which likely means a blog post that likely won't be seen by over 30 people.
Sorry if I misunderstood! I'd be interested in grasping what I'm missing ...
You said you would be interested:
https://butterflyeconomy.blogspot.com/2022/05/place-cutlure-...
https://butterflyeconomy.blogspot.com/2022/05/place-cutlure-...
[deleted]
The reality is the networking and opportunities in journalism are far superior in New York. There's no better place for advancement than the NYTimes IMO.
Journalism is a hustle.
Journalism is a hustle.
I strongly agree with your main assertion. I heard several professional journalists recommend "networking" and "effective self-promotion and marketing" to get internships with well-known companies to add to your as the main advice for new journalists, versus focusing their advice on how to do quality reporting to produce good work samples.
However, I speculate that The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are equivalently great places for advancement for reporters (if only because the NYTimes's new executive editor/editor-in-chief spent much of his career with the WSJ).
However, I speculate that The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are equivalently great places for advancement for reporters (if only because the NYTimes's new executive editor/editor-in-chief spent much of his career with the WSJ).
> It's something I've lamented before: Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.
In the context of finding the best jobs at the top of an industry, key locations like New York, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Seattle, and others depending on the industry really are significantly better.
That doesn’t mean you can’t find okay or good jobs in other locations, but if you’re in journalism then it’s far, far easier to get a top job by moving to New York or a small number of other cities than it is by moving to some random small city somewhere.
In this context, if someone is going through all the trouble of emigrating to a different country for their career (a huge amount of work) then it only makes sense to choose the locations best suited for that work. It wouldn’t even begin to make sense if someone uprooted their entire life, switched countries, and then chose Alabama as their home base to launch their national journalism career.
It’s definitely not because people are being swayed by Sinatra songs or other media. These cities really are epicenters for certain industries.
In the context of finding the best jobs at the top of an industry, key locations like New York, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Seattle, and others depending on the industry really are significantly better.
That doesn’t mean you can’t find okay or good jobs in other locations, but if you’re in journalism then it’s far, far easier to get a top job by moving to New York or a small number of other cities than it is by moving to some random small city somewhere.
In this context, if someone is going through all the trouble of emigrating to a different country for their career (a huge amount of work) then it only makes sense to choose the locations best suited for that work. It wouldn’t even begin to make sense if someone uprooted their entire life, switched countries, and then chose Alabama as their home base to launch their national journalism career.
It’s definitely not because people are being swayed by Sinatra songs or other media. These cities really are epicenters for certain industries.
> I imagine in Europe, it's probably Paris and London that draws both French/British and foreigners.
For some people, I'm sure, but don't assume everyone wants the same kind of life.
I could live in London if I chose, and there are some things about it that would be attractive, but on balance I'm far happier with my small-town life 50 miles away.
For some people, I'm sure, but don't assume everyone wants the same kind of life.
I could live in London if I chose, and there are some things about it that would be attractive, but on balance I'm far happier with my small-town life 50 miles away.
> I imagine in Europe, it's probably Paris and London that draws both French/British and foreigners.
This is an interesting question. In my experience, there is no European equivalent. Relocating within the EU might be relatively easy visa-wise, but there is often a language barrier and a different culture you’d have to adjust to, which prevents the formation of industry-specific hubs. Depending on the country you’re from, you’ll likely say that your capital is some kind of hub for industry _xyz_, but if you ask citizens from another country in the EU the same question, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d get different answers.
This is an interesting question. In my experience, there is no European equivalent. Relocating within the EU might be relatively easy visa-wise, but there is often a language barrier and a different culture you’d have to adjust to, which prevents the formation of industry-specific hubs. Depending on the country you’re from, you’ll likely say that your capital is some kind of hub for industry _xyz_, but if you ask citizens from another country in the EU the same question, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d get different answers.
It's true that there is no similar city advertisement anywhere in Europe, at least nothing on a level close to New York. Funnily, that doesn't prevent however some of the employers to sometimes try presenting their locations (say, Amsterdam or Zürich) in the list of benefits.
"Depending on the country you’re from, you’ll likely say that your capital is some kind of hub for industry _xyz_"
To narrow it down a bit, count only the places having a significant population. It's harder to make that claim for capitals like Ljubljana or Reykjavík.
"Depending on the country you’re from, you’ll likely say that your capital is some kind of hub for industry _xyz_"
To narrow it down a bit, count only the places having a significant population. It's harder to make that claim for capitals like Ljubljana or Reykjavík.
The US is a mostly monolingual "country of countries." They are called states because they were envisioned as separate nation-states who shared an army for purposes of self defense.
The original charter was a sort that historically never really worked anywhere and it was failing to provide funds, iirc, for paying for defense. So they gave the federal government more teeth and it became some weird beast of a sort the world had not seen before.
And here we are, with this strange beast still behaving strangely all these years later.
The original charter was a sort that historically never really worked anywhere and it was failing to provide funds, iirc, for paying for defense. So they gave the federal government more teeth and it became some weird beast of a sort the world had not seen before.
And here we are, with this strange beast still behaving strangely all these years later.
> I imagine in Europe, it's probably Paris and London that draws both French/British and foreigners.
It's not as true in the UK. The salary differential between a medium city and The City isn't as big so while there's definitely more opportunity and higher pay in London it's wiped out by higher costs of living. Lots of people still move there because they like the lifestyle or to climb the ladder faster but if you're content to be a solid well paid professional there are lots of smaller (but not necessarily small) cities with plenty of opportunity, better work life balance and affordable housing.
It's not as true in the UK. The salary differential between a medium city and The City isn't as big so while there's definitely more opportunity and higher pay in London it's wiped out by higher costs of living. Lots of people still move there because they like the lifestyle or to climb the ladder faster but if you're content to be a solid well paid professional there are lots of smaller (but not necessarily small) cities with plenty of opportunity, better work life balance and affordable housing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson called New York City "a sucked orange" (He did not like NY). Once I’ve visited it, I also did not like it. I don’t get the appeal
>Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.
Because it mostly is. The vast swaths of the inland US are cultural black holes of consumption. There is simply not enough population density, diversity, or opportunity to generate anything meaningful. It's probably hard for Europeans to understand that in the US, I can get in a car, drive a thousand miles in any direction to a new city, get out, and find the exact identical built environment around me, inhabited by the exact same people, speaking the exact same language and accent, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, driving the same cars, listening to the same music, and practicing the same religion.
Because it mostly is. The vast swaths of the inland US are cultural black holes of consumption. There is simply not enough population density, diversity, or opportunity to generate anything meaningful. It's probably hard for Europeans to understand that in the US, I can get in a car, drive a thousand miles in any direction to a new city, get out, and find the exact identical built environment around me, inhabited by the exact same people, speaking the exact same language and accent, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, driving the same cars, listening to the same music, and practicing the same religion.
>> the exact same people, speaking the exact same language and accent, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, driving the same cars, listening to the same music, and practicing the same religion.
That's called a nation.
That's called a nation.
Finland and Japan are much more homogenous than the U.S or Canada. Does it make them worse places? In some ways yes and others no. Diversity in itself does not mean much. Yugoslavia was super diverse.
Ok, but then why not Toronto?
Since New York City has more opportunities and larger scale compared to Toronto the question boils down to a career efficiency and potential future leverage.
If you're going to have to relocate and bust your ass working anyway, then why not take the shot at making a larger impact and trying to reap more rewards in the larger and more prosperous city.
If you're going to have to relocate and bust your ass working anyway, then why not take the shot at making a larger impact and trying to reap more rewards in the larger and more prosperous city.
alar44(3)
There is no future in Canada. Our GDP per capita in USD has gone down 20% in the last decade [1]. We're one of the most expensive places to live and real earnings have gone down in the last decade.
Almost everyone I know is already gone, either to the US or Europe. If you're educated, the sheer amount of money you'll make in the US makes up for things like lack of socialized healthcare. In Europe, you get all the same socialized benefits (better actually), a similar to better income but housing and various day to day items cost much, much less.
We're basically a petro-state that only incidentally has other industries because we're a low-cost alternative to American labour.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
Almost everyone I know is already gone, either to the US or Europe. If you're educated, the sheer amount of money you'll make in the US makes up for things like lack of socialized healthcare. In Europe, you get all the same socialized benefits (better actually), a similar to better income but housing and various day to day items cost much, much less.
We're basically a petro-state that only incidentally has other industries because we're a low-cost alternative to American labour.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
If you look at the GDP per capita graph for most developed countries it has a similar shape
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=canada+gdp+per+capita%2...
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=canada+gdp+per+capita%2...
Ours is still the biggest decline. You're also missing the US which is a different story altogether... But even conceding that point, then compare to housing costs:
https://data.oecd.org/chart/6Ikm
And consider that housing costs for a desirable Canadian location (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa) are much higher than that chart. And that the middle of nowhere in any of those European countries is still liveable whereas the middle of nowhere in Canada potentially means thousands of KMs away.
And that's not touching on other COL metrics where Canada is uniquely bad.
https://data.oecd.org/chart/6Ikm
And consider that housing costs for a desirable Canadian location (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa) are much higher than that chart. And that the middle of nowhere in any of those European countries is still liveable whereas the middle of nowhere in Canada potentially means thousands of KMs away.
And that's not touching on other COL metrics where Canada is uniquely bad.
[deleted]
> Our GDP per capita in USD has gone down 20% in the last decade [1].
It appears that much of this is due to CAD depreciating relative to USD over the last 10 years [2]. I suppose this is relevant for Canadians buying imported goods, but could be less relevant for local goods.
[2]: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=CAD&to=USD&view=10Y
It appears that much of this is due to CAD depreciating relative to USD over the last 10 years [2]. I suppose this is relevant for Canadians buying imported goods, but could be less relevant for local goods.
[2]: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=CAD&to=USD&view=10Y
All our goods are imported since we make hardly anything. The few consumer products Canadians do make generally get exported to countries with higher incomes or as luxury goods. So it definitely matters.
Problem is that, compared to US,Canada is not very self-sufficient. The average Canadian imports a lot of stuff. Kind of limited what you can grow in this frozen wasteland.
Every modern economy imports a lot of things. It's far more efficient than trying to make it all yourself.
Calling Canada a petro-state is inaccurate at ~6% of GDP. Perhaps you mean more generally a resource based economy which is largely true.
As a fraction of the economy it is small, but it is large as a fraction of foreign trade, and volatile.
Oil prices explain most of the moves in CAD/USD that aren't explained by diverging interest rates.
- https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/201... - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-you-can-go-...
Oil prices explain most of the moves in CAD/USD that aren't explained by diverging interest rates.
- https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/201... - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-you-can-go-...
Our #1 export is petroleum products by a very wide margin...
The worst side of Canada is what people have done to real estate. This is going to bite back the country eventually, it's really just a giant Ponzi scheme now.
They kind of forget that most well educated Canadians can easily go south of the border for better opportunities, cheaper housing and surprisingly better health care.
They kind of forget that most well educated Canadians can easily go south of the border for better opportunities, cheaper housing and surprisingly better health care.
> surprisingly better health care
What do you mean by that? The problems with US healthcare are well known.
What do you mean by that? The problems with US healthcare are well known.
You must be talking about poor people's perspective. US has the best healthcare in the World for those that can afford it. Canadians already travel south of the border to seek care. The alternative for them is to wait in line for several months, or even a couple of years, and see their condition progress until get to see a second tier specialist.
>You must be talking about poor people's perspective. US has the best healthcare in the World for those that can afford it.
This seems to be contradicted by a study[1] that compared the health outcomes of americans in the top 1% and 5% of counties, against the average residents in other developed countries. The conclusion:
> This study suggests that privileged White US citizens have better health outcomes than average US citizens for 6 health outcomes but often fare worse than the mean measure of health outcomes of 12 other developed countries. These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
This seems to be contradicted by a study[1] that compared the health outcomes of americans in the top 1% and 5% of counties, against the average residents in other developed countries. The conclusion:
> This study suggests that privileged White US citizens have better health outcomes than average US citizens for 6 health outcomes but often fare worse than the mean measure of health outcomes of 12 other developed countries. These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Americans travel for healthcare too, including to India, Mexico, and IIRC Canada.
> US has the best healthcare in the World
I hear this repeated a lot, almost like a marketing tagline, but I haven't seen it.
Mostly I see what looks like highly constrained supply: wealthy people wait a long time, sometimes months, even with very alarming or painful conditions, and then get minimal attention - usually no diagnosis, just a guess and a pill - and then are on their own unless they want to start the process over again. Or they may get referred to someone else, which starts the clock over. The lack of diagnosis is now a joke among people I know; my impression is that the doctors lack the resources (i.e., time) to track down the actual problem; they just try to manage everything.
Is there a basis to the claim?
> US has the best healthcare in the World
I hear this repeated a lot, almost like a marketing tagline, but I haven't seen it.
Mostly I see what looks like highly constrained supply: wealthy people wait a long time, sometimes months, even with very alarming or painful conditions, and then get minimal attention - usually no diagnosis, just a guess and a pill - and then are on their own unless they want to start the process over again. Or they may get referred to someone else, which starts the clock over. The lack of diagnosis is now a joke among people I know; my impression is that the doctors lack the resources (i.e., time) to track down the actual problem; they just try to manage everything.
Is there a basis to the claim?
> my impression is that the doctors lack the resources (i.e., time) to track down the actual problem
Supporting anecdata: I happen to know of a well-regarded specialist, past retirement age, who works this niche by seeing patients for cash only, insurance billing.
Supporting anecdata: I happen to know of a well-regarded specialist, past retirement age, who works this niche by seeing patients for cash only, insurance billing.
[deleted]
> There is no future in Canada. Our GDP per capita in USD has gone down 20% in the last decade [1].
Looking at GDP per hour worked, Canada is higher than the US:
* https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm
Average hours worked in the US is 1767, while CA is 1644:
* https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS
Perhaps we Canadians have simply decided not to kill ourselves as much chasing the almighty dollar / loonie, and that's why we make "less" money in total.
Looking at GDP per hour worked, Canada is higher than the US:
* https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm
Average hours worked in the US is 1767, while CA is 1644:
* https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS
Perhaps we Canadians have simply decided not to kill ourselves as much chasing the almighty dollar / loonie, and that's why we make "less" money in total.
Yes - of my high school group of friends, far more than half moved to nearby Vancouver initially and since then, half have left the country for the USA or Europe. These are almost all educated people, so it’s brain drain.
I worry a lot about the future my kids have in this country. I don’t tell people that often, but my spider senses are tingling like crazy.
I worry a lot about the future my kids have in this country. I don’t tell people that often, but my spider senses are tingling like crazy.
Just moved back with mit degree. Couldn't wait to leave the us. Anecdata.
what were the anecdata reasons for moving there? the culture?
A bit of everything. I'm a simple person. Fun job with lots of time off and the Canadian wilderness is all I need.
That’s why I’m still here. I guess working in software meant it was easier for me to stay, so who knows. Maybe I would have gone with them had I felt stuck in some other career, but I’ve always earned more than most people I know simply because I know how to press the buttons on the keyboard better.
The wilderness here makes me feel like I could never leave. I’ve been plenty of other places, and the idea of not being in this place is unnerving. The ocean, the forest, the temperate climate, rain, all of it. I’ve come to feel a deep connection to it.
The wilderness here makes me feel like I could never leave. I’ve been plenty of other places, and the idea of not being in this place is unnerving. The ocean, the forest, the temperate climate, rain, all of it. I’ve come to feel a deep connection to it.
I feel that. I love the outdoors and Canada has plenty.
On the other hand, we're having a kid, and as much as I'd like them to grow up in the outdoors I'd also rather them be exposed to culture versus a bunch of hippies and redneck meth addicts... So we're making the move to Europe (back in the case of my SO).
On the other hand, we're having a kid, and as much as I'd like them to grow up in the outdoors I'd also rather them be exposed to culture versus a bunch of hippies and redneck meth addicts... So we're making the move to Europe (back in the case of my SO).
Nice, seems like a good call! Loads of great cities in Europe aren’t far from great wilderness. Great culture. Your kids are lucky!
I seems plausible to me that a self-reinforcing death spiral could be well underway.
[deleted]
Covid has changed this quite a bit, though even pre covid this wasn't exactly true depending on your profession.
Pre-covid, Canada was the place to be for working in film/tv , visual effects and animation in terms of jobs. I skimmed it but the author didn't mention exactly what creative vocation they were in but given they said Nashville, it's unlikely to be in these fields.
Post Covid, success as a developer can mean working remote for a US company, and that is a huge tide change recently.
You're suddenly getting US rates, minus the currency conversion, in Canada. Better yet, you can get silicon valley rates.
Pre-covid, Canada was the place to be for working in film/tv , visual effects and animation in terms of jobs. I skimmed it but the author didn't mention exactly what creative vocation they were in but given they said Nashville, it's unlikely to be in these fields.
Post Covid, success as a developer can mean working remote for a US company, and that is a huge tide change recently.
You're suddenly getting US rates, minus the currency conversion, in Canada. Better yet, you can get silicon valley rates.
My Canadian startup was acquired by a silicon valley company. They definitely did not pay US rates. They referred to our office as Bangalore of the North.
That's a shame. I've been part of acquisitions of Canadian companies when I was still in the Bay Area. Other than conversion rates, we didn't price Canadian companies differently than the US acquisitions.
Uh... I have a less rosy picture of the situation.
To brain drain Canadian talent, US companies used to need to convince people to physically move to a different country, a rather tall order, but even then people were leaving in droves.
Now, they can brain drain Canadian talent with practically 0 barriers through remote work.
Unless Canadian employers are willing and able to adapt quickly and start offering truly globally competitive salaries (and historically they have proven to be utterly incapable of this), I think this is game over.
To brain drain Canadian talent, US companies used to need to convince people to physically move to a different country, a rather tall order, but even then people were leaving in droves.
Now, they can brain drain Canadian talent with practically 0 barriers through remote work.
Unless Canadian employers are willing and able to adapt quickly and start offering truly globally competitive salaries (and historically they have proven to be utterly incapable of this), I think this is game over.
That's a fair view on it if you're viewing it from a domestic growth. I was viewing it from the perspective of an employee. Many of these companies are opening up proper Canadian divisions however, though it does price out many Canadian headquartered companies in the process.
That’s quite an assumption that US companies are paying US rates in Canada. I can confirm that mine is paying 20% less
Last I checked, here in BC the wage for a senior programmer typically ranged between 80 and 150, Canadian.
Taking a 20% discount on a SV senior salary, in American dollars, would likely be a significant raise.
Taking a 20% discount on a SV senior salary, in American dollars, would likely be a significant raise.
150 seems high in my experience in Vancouver. Are you able to comment on which companies pay towards that end of the range? I guess this would be Amazon, Microsoft, Apple?
The main difference is no RSUs vs. $200-500k/year RSUs.
My new US based employer laughed when he saw what I was making in Canada. “So this will be quite a nice jump for you?” Yes. Yes it was.
The US company I started working for during the pandemic is paying me US rates, in USD, so I wouldn't call it an "assumption" just because you accepted a job in which you're getting paid 20% less.
Are they paying SV rates with RSU though as FB and Google are definitely paying noticeably less overall as that was the point of the OP?
The person I am directly responding to was disputing the idea that employers are paying US rates in Canada at all ("That’s quite an assumption that US companies are paying US rates in Canada."), not SV rates specifically. Please don't try to shift the goal posts.
20% less might still be over double local rates.
Which is probably still >50% higher than Canadian companies pay with exchange rates factored in.
My girlfriend from Vancouver is moving to the states to live with me. In trying to find a job for her, whenever potential employers hear that she is Canadian, they immediately want to offer remote for her from Vancouver at the local salary rate, which is half what it would be in the US.
Agreed - as someone who watches this market closely since I'd like to return to Canada at some point in the future, the gap has closed considerably. I would say there's still something of a gap but a) it's way way closer than it has ever been and b) it appears to still be closing.
It would not surprise me if the top employers in the Canadian market got to parity with US tech hub comp.
It would not surprise me if the top employers in the Canadian market got to parity with US tech hub comp.
For sure. Amazon will pay $300K in Vancouver for a DevOps role. That’s just one data point, but I can tell you it has never looked this good by half. The pandemic changed everything.
I wouldn't discount the role of tightening US immigration policy either. Starting with the last administration H-1B admissions plummeted: processing times and rejection rates skyrocketed. It's now dicier than ever to come to the US on a H-1B visa.
And despite rhetoric to the contrary the current administration seems intent on upholding these changes - processing for H-1Bs is still nowhere near historical norms.
It used to be that major tech cos would "park" people in Canada to wait for their US visas to clear. I suspect these changes are causing companies to rethink the "wait for US visas" part of the sentence. The more people FAANG parks in Canadian cities the more we will see FAANG-type compensation in those cities.
And despite rhetoric to the contrary the current administration seems intent on upholding these changes - processing for H-1Bs is still nowhere near historical norms.
It used to be that major tech cos would "park" people in Canada to wait for their US visas to clear. I suspect these changes are causing companies to rethink the "wait for US visas" part of the sentence. The more people FAANG parks in Canadian cities the more we will see FAANG-type compensation in those cities.
And it’s not just FAANG. Silicon Valley seems to have discovered that Canadian universities churn out a lot of skilled graduates - many who come from third countries via generous student visas. Many valley based startups have opened offices in Vancouver, Toronto, etc. and are paying great salaries not much removed from valley pay levels.
How does the exchange rate and tax rate differences affect the take-home pay comparison?
The exchange rate isn't much of a factor - since you're paying for goods in CAD$ anyway and purchasing power isn't hugely different. Some categories are considerably more expensive, like your internet bill, but for most people (and at the incomes in consideration) it's a rounding error.
Tax rate-wise (at the range of incomes we're talking about, which is to say mid 6-figures) you'd compare favorably to income-taxed states like CA, NY, or NJ. In particular whole categories of spending either go away or are greatly reduced due to the presence of things like universal healthcare, which adds to the competitiveness of disposable income. When I lived in NY I did a quick modeling of what my taxes would be like for the equivalent income in Canada and it shook out to basically even.
In comparison to no income tax states like TX the situation is considerably less favorable, though depending on your life situation there might be factors that nudge you in Canada's favor (high healthcare spend, high private education spend, high college tuition spend, etc.)
Tax rate-wise (at the range of incomes we're talking about, which is to say mid 6-figures) you'd compare favorably to income-taxed states like CA, NY, or NJ. In particular whole categories of spending either go away or are greatly reduced due to the presence of things like universal healthcare, which adds to the competitiveness of disposable income. When I lived in NY I did a quick modeling of what my taxes would be like for the equivalent income in Canada and it shook out to basically even.
In comparison to no income tax states like TX the situation is considerably less favorable, though depending on your life situation there might be factors that nudge you in Canada's favor (high healthcare spend, high private education spend, high college tuition spend, etc.)
You _can_, but most companies are doing location-based pay, so it certainly isn't easy
Even with location-based pay adjustments, big tech has had a growing presence in Canada, and it's becoming more and more realistic to land roles in the upper range of the trimodal comp distribution curve.
Location based adjustments for a USD 300k/yr IC role do make up for a huge pay ceiling increase compared to a decade ago where senior dev @ CAD 120k was a ceiling for IC roles before needing to pivot into management.
Location based adjustments for a USD 300k/yr IC role do make up for a huge pay ceiling increase compared to a decade ago where senior dev @ CAD 120k was a ceiling for IC roles before needing to pivot into management.
It's true, but I'm seeing a significant change in the number of roles I'm being reached out to for, or that my friends have gotten, where the location based pay is just the currency difference +-10%.
Assuming similar high expense cities like Vancouver vs San Francisco. Other Canadian cities tend to drop off on the cost of labor scale very quickly which affects the location based pay a lot. But that's true in the US as well.
Granted that currency conversion hit is a lot. For me, it's less than the amount of time I spent commuting to work in the US, so I feel I came out in top for pay relative to my hours involved.
Assuming similar high expense cities like Vancouver vs San Francisco. Other Canadian cities tend to drop off on the cost of labor scale very quickly which affects the location based pay a lot. But that's true in the US as well.
Granted that currency conversion hit is a lot. For me, it's less than the amount of time I spent commuting to work in the US, so I feel I came out in top for pay relative to my hours involved.
" Canada was the place to be for working in film/tv , visual effects and animation in terms of jobs"
No it wasn't.
That such a glib Canadian thing to say.
There are some decent jobs in those fields - but they are not even close to the kinds of jobs available in the US.
For some animation jobs - it can be a bit closer. But for anything else, no, Toronto/Van/Montreal is a 'lesser cost centre' for some labour, that's it.
Finally - most of this boils down to money. If someone can double their salary by going south they will.
No it wasn't.
That such a glib Canadian thing to say.
There are some decent jobs in those fields - but they are not even close to the kinds of jobs available in the US.
For some animation jobs - it can be a bit closer. But for anything else, no, Toronto/Van/Montreal is a 'lesser cost centre' for some labour, that's it.
Finally - most of this boils down to money. If someone can double their salary by going south they will.
Ironically, I think your comment is a very glib American thing to say. You reduced the entire Canadian market to just being cheaper, which was perhaps true in the height of tax breaks, but that doesn't negate the size of the industry in Canada is massive.
There is significantly more VFX/animation studio work in Canada.
I feel like you both insulted my comment, then proceeded to do the thing you suggested my comment did. it feels like projection.
There is significantly more VFX/animation studio work in Canada.
I feel like you both insulted my comment, then proceeded to do the thing you suggested my comment did. it feels like projection.
First, I'm Canadian, second - "There is significantly more VFX/animation studio work in Canada." - coming from an 'industry adjacent' situation (but not in the industry) - I would higly doubt that. I don't think you realize just how big the USA is, and that 'Entertainment' is one of their core industries.
'More Jobs Per Capita' - yes - that's entirely plausible. Canada is often much better than the US on so many 'Per Capita' things. But they are probably solid middle class jobs - which is fine - not the executive/leadership and high paying jobs.
'More Jobs Per Capita' - yes - that's entirely plausible. Canada is often much better than the US on so many 'Per Capita' things. But they are probably solid middle class jobs - which is fine - not the executive/leadership and high paying jobs.
Well either way your comment was glib and seems to completely ignore the specifics of which industries I mentioned.
I didn't say all of entertainment. I was very specific about the subsection of the industry.
Outside of DWA, WDAS and Pixar, the majority of animation and VFX work for feature and TV has moved to Canada or Australia.
Yes there are bigger entertainment industries in the US. That wasn't what I said, and you're getting hung up on some pedantic nonsense that is fully of your own creation.
I didn't say all of entertainment. I was very specific about the subsection of the industry.
Outside of DWA, WDAS and Pixar, the majority of animation and VFX work for feature and TV has moved to Canada or Australia.
Yes there are bigger entertainment industries in the US. That wasn't what I said, and you're getting hung up on some pedantic nonsense that is fully of your own creation.
"Outside of DWA, WDAS and Pixar, the majority of animation and VFX work for feature and TV has moved to Canada or Australia."
This is the 'glib' bit - I don't believe for a second that there are more animation jobs in Canada, even outside the big studios.
The US is 10x bigger, and, they have a lot of industry here.
Again: More jobs per capita? Even 'way more'? Entirely reasonable. But 'more jobs than the US' - or notably: 'the focal point of the industry' - definitely not.
It's important to recognize Canada is not 'leading' here so much as 'providing labour' - i.e. 'white collar auto assembly'.
If Canada was producing, financing, exporting creative work, then it would be another kind of story.
This is the 'glib' bit - I don't believe for a second that there are more animation jobs in Canada, even outside the big studios.
The US is 10x bigger, and, they have a lot of industry here.
Again: More jobs per capita? Even 'way more'? Entirely reasonable. But 'more jobs than the US' - or notably: 'the focal point of the industry' - definitely not.
It's important to recognize Canada is not 'leading' here so much as 'providing labour' - i.e. 'white collar auto assembly'.
If Canada was producing, financing, exporting creative work, then it would be another kind of story.
Canadian tech employers have been completely myopic for decades, only willing to compete in salary against other local tech employers, while anyone who's actually any good can make 2x+ within a 3 hour drive south. This resulted in a ton of brain drain in the form of people physically moving out of Canada and into the US. (I was one of those people who were brain drained away.)
Now people can make 2x+ within the comfort of their own homes, making it even easier for US tech companies to brain drain talent away from Canadian companies. Will that finally force them to change their ways or are they going to keep scraping the bottom of the ever depleting barrel?
I honestly don't have a very positive outlook given the history here, but would love to be proven wrong.
Now people can make 2x+ within the comfort of their own homes, making it even easier for US tech companies to brain drain talent away from Canadian companies. Will that finally force them to change their ways or are they going to keep scraping the bottom of the ever depleting barrel?
I honestly don't have a very positive outlook given the history here, but would love to be proven wrong.
Who are these Canadian tech employers? Do they then sub contract work from other international companies or just targeting local (canadian) work?
This is definitely true for the creative industry.
I used to be a professional musician, and now work at a well known tech company doing Production Engineering. I work remotely in Canada. I watched lots of creative friends move to New York and LA because that is where you have to go to really make it in almost cases.
I don’t think success in tech means moving to the US though. Lots of US companies will pay good salaries to remote Canadians. I live in Canada not because I don’t have the option to go work in the US but because the trade offs of living in the USA aren’t worth the increased salary to me.
I used to be a professional musician, and now work at a well known tech company doing Production Engineering. I work remotely in Canada. I watched lots of creative friends move to New York and LA because that is where you have to go to really make it in almost cases.
I don’t think success in tech means moving to the US though. Lots of US companies will pay good salaries to remote Canadians. I live in Canada not because I don’t have the option to go work in the US but because the trade offs of living in the USA aren’t worth the increased salary to me.
Note that the article focuses on the ability to find work in the creative and media industry, versus the technology industry.
In addition, though it captures a feeling that many Canadians have, I wish it were backed by statistics and data to support the assertion in the headline.
I also thought that the following passage was not strongly supported:
>”WHEN I GOT BACK to Toronto, I understood in a new, tactile way that I might one day leave it. Toronto’s energy flows endlessly toward the impulse to win, to never stop working until you hit your head on the visible ceiling. Then you work some more. New York has that vibe too, maybe even more so, but I feel like everyone’s more self-aware about it. And, more importantly, there’s no ceiling. You can try to dominate the world and touch the clouds, as foolish as it would be.”
I believe the “impulse to win” is more of a function of who you associate with and your own attitudes, versus the city you happen to be located in.
There is a grain of truth (people who move to New York City are often self-selected to be ambitious), but it wasn’t convincing to assert that the people of Toronto are chasing promotions as part of a corporate ladder until they hit a ceiling.
Counter-examples are abound in Toronto. Some people start their own companies, others find enjoyment outside of work (e.g. family and friends), and others are comfortable with their position in life (e.g. small business owner of a bakery).
People in Toronto also come from vastly different cultural backgrounds as the city is one of the most culturally diverse (over half as part of an ethnic minority as of 2016) in the world [0], so it is a leap to assert that everyone shares similar beliefs about work just because they live in the city.
The author’s assertion is an example of the “false-consensus effect,” where people mistakenly believe that others in a particular context must share their beliefs [1]. This is why studies with statistical analyses are important.
>”But, in practice, that inevitability now felt freeing. I guess I got tired of repressing my sense of possibility.”
You don’t need to move to New York City to feel a sense of possibility and work toward your goals.
[0] (PDF): https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/99b4-TOHea...
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/false-consensus/
In addition, though it captures a feeling that many Canadians have, I wish it were backed by statistics and data to support the assertion in the headline.
I also thought that the following passage was not strongly supported:
>”WHEN I GOT BACK to Toronto, I understood in a new, tactile way that I might one day leave it. Toronto’s energy flows endlessly toward the impulse to win, to never stop working until you hit your head on the visible ceiling. Then you work some more. New York has that vibe too, maybe even more so, but I feel like everyone’s more self-aware about it. And, more importantly, there’s no ceiling. You can try to dominate the world and touch the clouds, as foolish as it would be.”
I believe the “impulse to win” is more of a function of who you associate with and your own attitudes, versus the city you happen to be located in.
There is a grain of truth (people who move to New York City are often self-selected to be ambitious), but it wasn’t convincing to assert that the people of Toronto are chasing promotions as part of a corporate ladder until they hit a ceiling.
Counter-examples are abound in Toronto. Some people start their own companies, others find enjoyment outside of work (e.g. family and friends), and others are comfortable with their position in life (e.g. small business owner of a bakery).
People in Toronto also come from vastly different cultural backgrounds as the city is one of the most culturally diverse (over half as part of an ethnic minority as of 2016) in the world [0], so it is a leap to assert that everyone shares similar beliefs about work just because they live in the city.
The author’s assertion is an example of the “false-consensus effect,” where people mistakenly believe that others in a particular context must share their beliefs [1]. This is why studies with statistical analyses are important.
>”But, in practice, that inevitability now felt freeing. I guess I got tired of repressing my sense of possibility.”
You don’t need to move to New York City to feel a sense of possibility and work toward your goals.
[0] (PDF): https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/99b4-TOHea...
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/false-consensus/
I think there's an unsaid thing here where the author means "money" when they say "possibility". The range of possible financial outcomes in the US is wider, there's definitely a lot more investor money flowing - both in technology and the arts. There's a type of runaway wealth that's achievable in the US that seems far less likely in Canada.
Which is the general theme of financial outcomes in the US: the highs are higher... and the lows are lower. It's the land of possibility and also the land of destitution and desperation. We contain multitudes, I suppose.
Being in tech and not the arts I can't say I know exactly what the author is describing - but certainly the tech "brain drain" of Canadians to the US has been overwhelmingly about money as opposed to the vague notion of "possibility". It seems valuable to not mince words about that - it's fine to want the kinds of outlier financial outcomes that the US makes possible and that's exceedingly rare in Canada, but one ought not conflate it with some other higher-minded notion.
Which is the general theme of financial outcomes in the US: the highs are higher... and the lows are lower. It's the land of possibility and also the land of destitution and desperation. We contain multitudes, I suppose.
Being in tech and not the arts I can't say I know exactly what the author is describing - but certainly the tech "brain drain" of Canadians to the US has been overwhelmingly about money as opposed to the vague notion of "possibility". It seems valuable to not mince words about that - it's fine to want the kinds of outlier financial outcomes that the US makes possible and that's exceedingly rare in Canada, but one ought not conflate it with some other higher-minded notion.
As a Torontonian, I would say this is 'Canadian Cope'
'But we have diversity!'
As if NY, or America somehow lacks there, or that is even hugely material.
You can 'do ok' in Toronto, it's a good city. You can 'fee' whatever you want, that's up to you.
But it's nary impossible to do anything world class - and that's where the surpluses are.
The critical mass, the salary base, the talent, the lack of elite - almost none of it is there.
There are 5x more, 'Amazing Engineers' in little Tel Aviv.
Tiny little Sweden, with only 10M people (a bit less than 2x Toronto) - makes all sorts of sophisticated gear for export - Canada makes hardly any.
And this is how Canada is constructed: to be a suburb of the world - where polite people consume foreign products. We don't 'make' or 'design' anything.
Toronto is a very 'Civic City' - which is great for citizens - it actually makes a lot of American cities look kind of crappy in comparison - but it's the lack of a proper elite that's the problem, which applies to a small class of people.
Almost everyone I know has moved to the US for opportunity, and the draining of the 'talent class' will have this effect on a nation.
FYI that includes talented migrants as well: my top Canadian migrant colleagues (all from India), are now living in the US. Canada brings in 'migrants with degrees' as 'tech workers' but the 'talent' (either migrant or local) that create the opportunities leave for the US.
It's a serious problem.
This has a lot to do with 'salary' and I noticed this problem was very different when the dollar was at parity in the 2000s. With monetary incentives levelled out, the problem is not nearly as bad.
Our leaders do this on purpose. The Ontario Minister of Industry (this is several years back), proclaimed as Cisco was coming to Toronto (partly for the cheap workers), that Toronto has 'great workers at a discount' and that they would do 'everything in their power to keep it that way!'. Literally saying that their 'industrial policy' was to keep us poorer than Americans, so that American companies would have 'satellite offices' here.
Canada is a 'Small Open Economy' next to a 'Large Open Economy' (in economic terms) and that tends to create this kind of outcome, when thought of in secular terms.
But a place like Sweden - they take a different approach, and focus on key industries and 'punch above their weight' - meaning, rather than 'just being a place for bigger country satellite offices' - they are able to make their own mark. A lot of this comes from past national strategies, i.e. cars, airplanes, weapons systems - companies left over from the war era, and even further back, but it provides their people with a 'local industrial base' that Canada does not have.
We really need a 'National Strategy' to deal with this, but it's not likely to happen because none of our leaders are particularly aware of the issue, nor do they have the talent, wherewithal or ability to do something about it, let alone grasp it. And to be fair it's a really difficult problem.
Also - this is the 'EU disease' as well. The way the EU is structured, particularly with the Euro as a 'hard currency' - means slack labour will be taken up in Germany, and lost in other areas. Italy has vast, vast foundations in 'complicated things' and cultural foundation, they'll be fine. But a place like Poland? Well - it'll lose it's talent - at the very same time that standard of living is actually increasing rapidly (i.e. good for citizens), there is just no 'BOSCH' or 'BMD' or 'SIEMENS' etc for the talent to go and make a difference. For that, Deutshland. Or UK, Netherlands etc..
'But we have diversity!'
As if NY, or America somehow lacks there, or that is even hugely material.
You can 'do ok' in Toronto, it's a good city. You can 'fee' whatever you want, that's up to you.
But it's nary impossible to do anything world class - and that's where the surpluses are.
The critical mass, the salary base, the talent, the lack of elite - almost none of it is there.
There are 5x more, 'Amazing Engineers' in little Tel Aviv.
Tiny little Sweden, with only 10M people (a bit less than 2x Toronto) - makes all sorts of sophisticated gear for export - Canada makes hardly any.
And this is how Canada is constructed: to be a suburb of the world - where polite people consume foreign products. We don't 'make' or 'design' anything.
Toronto is a very 'Civic City' - which is great for citizens - it actually makes a lot of American cities look kind of crappy in comparison - but it's the lack of a proper elite that's the problem, which applies to a small class of people.
Almost everyone I know has moved to the US for opportunity, and the draining of the 'talent class' will have this effect on a nation.
FYI that includes talented migrants as well: my top Canadian migrant colleagues (all from India), are now living in the US. Canada brings in 'migrants with degrees' as 'tech workers' but the 'talent' (either migrant or local) that create the opportunities leave for the US.
It's a serious problem.
This has a lot to do with 'salary' and I noticed this problem was very different when the dollar was at parity in the 2000s. With monetary incentives levelled out, the problem is not nearly as bad.
Our leaders do this on purpose. The Ontario Minister of Industry (this is several years back), proclaimed as Cisco was coming to Toronto (partly for the cheap workers), that Toronto has 'great workers at a discount' and that they would do 'everything in their power to keep it that way!'. Literally saying that their 'industrial policy' was to keep us poorer than Americans, so that American companies would have 'satellite offices' here.
Canada is a 'Small Open Economy' next to a 'Large Open Economy' (in economic terms) and that tends to create this kind of outcome, when thought of in secular terms.
But a place like Sweden - they take a different approach, and focus on key industries and 'punch above their weight' - meaning, rather than 'just being a place for bigger country satellite offices' - they are able to make their own mark. A lot of this comes from past national strategies, i.e. cars, airplanes, weapons systems - companies left over from the war era, and even further back, but it provides their people with a 'local industrial base' that Canada does not have.
We really need a 'National Strategy' to deal with this, but it's not likely to happen because none of our leaders are particularly aware of the issue, nor do they have the talent, wherewithal or ability to do something about it, let alone grasp it. And to be fair it's a really difficult problem.
Also - this is the 'EU disease' as well. The way the EU is structured, particularly with the Euro as a 'hard currency' - means slack labour will be taken up in Germany, and lost in other areas. Italy has vast, vast foundations in 'complicated things' and cultural foundation, they'll be fine. But a place like Poland? Well - it'll lose it's talent - at the very same time that standard of living is actually increasing rapidly (i.e. good for citizens), there is just no 'BOSCH' or 'BMD' or 'SIEMENS' etc for the talent to go and make a difference. For that, Deutshland. Or UK, Netherlands etc..
Canada and Sweden have almost identical GDP per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Yes, but that's not quite my point.
Also - those mean very different things.
First - Canada has vast natural resources, which are like 'easy money'. Japan can't rest on the laurels of digging money out of the ground. This actually might be keeping Canada from developing institutions.
Second - Government Spending is counted as GDP, which is a fairly odd thing because it's a measure of cost, not value. $1 in Gov. spending could create $10 in value. Or it could create 50 cents. We don't know. Sweden has huge levels of government spending so it's hard to say what kind of value is being created there. It makes all measures of GDP quite difficult.
Also - those mean very different things.
First - Canada has vast natural resources, which are like 'easy money'. Japan can't rest on the laurels of digging money out of the ground. This actually might be keeping Canada from developing institutions.
Second - Government Spending is counted as GDP, which is a fairly odd thing because it's a measure of cost, not value. $1 in Gov. spending could create $10 in value. Or it could create 50 cents. We don't know. Sweden has huge levels of government spending so it's hard to say what kind of value is being created there. It makes all measures of GDP quite difficult.
It's the same for Australians.
For other Australians reading this and thinking you can't get into the US, you absolutely can. Look up the E3 visa. It's easy to get because it's reserved entirely for Australian citizens.
For other Australians reading this and thinking you can't get into the US, you absolutely can. Look up the E3 visa. It's easy to get because it's reserved entirely for Australian citizens.
I'm not sure if this is true. Looking at 30 million vs 330 million in population, you'd expect cultural output to come out in a ratio of 11:1.
The arts are hyper-competitive. In the US you might think you have more of a chance because you see more successes, but I doubt the ratios are that different if you also account for more failures.
Also Canada has Québec, producing your works in French will naturally decrease the possible target audience.
The arts are hyper-competitive. In the US you might think you have more of a chance because you see more successes, but I doubt the ratios are that different if you also account for more failures.
Also Canada has Québec, producing your works in French will naturally decrease the possible target audience.
Also if you become Celine Dion in Canada you should have no trouble moving to the US at that point.
But trying to become famous from the ground up in a larger country seems more difficult. Big fish in small pond theory and all.
But trying to become famous from the ground up in a larger country seems more difficult. Big fish in small pond theory and all.
Because a market of 38M people has fewer and smaller opportunities than a market of 334M people, assuming same relative levels of wealth.
Size of domestic market used to be the theory in the 60s (it led to the formation of the EU), but isn't a popular explanation anymore because most large countries never ended up getting rich. Economic system used to be theory in the 90s, but also has fallen out of favour as countries that had "good systems" never really caught up (the UK has a very similar system in many ways, but doesn't have that final piece). It isn't really that simple. The US just appears to have everything at once. The closest is probably Australia or possibly Switzerland (both are significantly smaller than Canada).
Also, the US and Canada do not have the same level of wealth...the only country in the world that is close to the US in wealth is Switzerland and Australia (the latter is a bit unclear but is probably true once superannuation is included). Canada is definitely up there but is more similar to Europe than the US, again there is nowhere that really compares to the US.
Also, the US and Canada do not have the same level of wealth...the only country in the world that is close to the US in wealth is Switzerland and Australia (the latter is a bit unclear but is probably true once superannuation is included). Canada is definitely up there but is more similar to Europe than the US, again there is nowhere that really compares to the US.
> the only country in the world that is close to the US in wealth is Switzerland and Australia
What?! I have no idea where you got that idea from, but looking at https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ you can see the USA is 13th in the world when its wealth is divided by its population.
If you were trying to say that the USA is the wealthiest nation in absolute terms, I would understand, but when you place Australia and Switzerland as the only nations that "come close" you're clearly implying per capita wealth, meaning that's nonsense.
What?! I have no idea where you got that idea from, but looking at https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ you can see the USA is 13th in the world when its wealth is divided by its population.
If you were trying to say that the USA is the wealthiest nation in absolute terms, I would understand, but when you place Australia and Switzerland as the only nations that "come close" you're clearly implying per capita wealth, meaning that's nonsense.
GDP isn't wealth, it is a measure of output over a period of time (and wealth is an amount at a point in time). It is also, generally, quite misleading because a nation can produce a tremendous amount of output, and all of that can be siphoned into an offshore account in Switzerland (KSA is an example, but there are also more subtle examples like Germany).
And measuring wealth is very, very complex. Do you include pensions? How do you value a state pension? Do you include housing? How do you value housing? But if you look at relative net financial wealth (inc. pensions, you are likely going to Google and find something that doesn't include pensions) then the statement is true...the US and Switzerland are way out ahead on net financial assets, and in datasets that include pension wealth then you have Australia up there too (which has one of the most successful pension systems in the world, very strong economy too but they punch above that weight when looking at wealth).
Again though, measuring these kind of things is complex so you have to not only be able to Google a ranking system but understand exactly how the pension system is structured in that country, how is the financial sector structured, how is the tax system structured, etc. The US is consistently at the top by any measure though.
And measuring wealth is very, very complex. Do you include pensions? How do you value a state pension? Do you include housing? How do you value housing? But if you look at relative net financial wealth (inc. pensions, you are likely going to Google and find something that doesn't include pensions) then the statement is true...the US and Switzerland are way out ahead on net financial assets, and in datasets that include pension wealth then you have Australia up there too (which has one of the most successful pension systems in the world, very strong economy too but they punch above that weight when looking at wealth).
Again though, measuring these kind of things is complex so you have to not only be able to Google a ranking system but understand exactly how the pension system is structured in that country, how is the financial sector structured, how is the tax system structured, etc. The US is consistently at the top by any measure though.
The problem is that you're saying it's very hard to measure wealth while at the same time confidently claiming the US is at the top. That just doesn't make sense.
GDP may not be a perfect measure of wealth but it's the best we've got IMO.
I've lived for a short while in Canada, for many years in Australia, and visited the USA many times... I really don't see much difference in wealth in general. I'm sure there's a lot more extremely rich people in the USA, but those are a small portion of the population so I wouldn't consider that an important indication of the wealth of a country, at least not as much as the wealth of the majority of its citizens (and the USA notoriously also has a lot more very poor people than either Australia or Canada). If you do that, perhaps the Arab Emirates would be wealthier? Or even China, home to more bilionaires than the USA IIRC?!
Also, if you include healthcare access and pension as you seem to be doing, again, the USA is probably the worst as you're pretty much on your own with those things, while in nearly any other developed country, people get decent healthcare and pension even without having had high paying jobs their whole life.
GDP may not be a perfect measure of wealth but it's the best we've got IMO.
I've lived for a short while in Canada, for many years in Australia, and visited the USA many times... I really don't see much difference in wealth in general. I'm sure there's a lot more extremely rich people in the USA, but those are a small portion of the population so I wouldn't consider that an important indication of the wealth of a country, at least not as much as the wealth of the majority of its citizens (and the USA notoriously also has a lot more very poor people than either Australia or Canada). If you do that, perhaps the Arab Emirates would be wealthier? Or even China, home to more bilionaires than the USA IIRC?!
Also, if you include healthcare access and pension as you seem to be doing, again, the USA is probably the worst as you're pretty much on your own with those things, while in nearly any other developed country, people get decent healthcare and pension even without having had high paying jobs their whole life.
GDP does not represent wealth, it's a measure of current economic production. Furthermore, GDP is skewed for some countries where GNP might be a better figure (e.g., Ireland, where a fair chunk of the domestic production accrues to foreigners operating in the country).
Table 2-1 in [1] lists mean wealth per adult per country, with Monaco first ($324,721), Switzerland second ($231,354) and the US third ($215,146) as far as I can tell. Median wealth figures are of course worse.
[1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab...
Table 2-1 in [1] lists mean wealth per adult per country, with Monaco first ($324,721), Switzerland second ($231,354) and the US third ($215,146) as far as I can tell. Median wealth figures are of course worse.
[1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab...
You have referenced the number for 2000.
You can also see Australia punches well above it's weight in that survey. The stuff CS produces on UHNWIs is also very interesting.
You can also see Australia punches well above it's weight in that survey. The stuff CS produces on UHNWIs is also very interesting.
1-12 are either petro states or distorted due to being tax havens.
The EU is not very comparable to the US. Pass all the laws you want allowing mobility and trade between EU members, you’re still not going to bridge the deep language and culture divides between the countries.
The US is a true single market because English is the dominant language and because everyone from the Deep South to Alaska consumes the cultural products of Hollywood and New York and the technology of Silicon Valley.
The US is a true single market because English is the dominant language and because everyone from the Deep South to Alaska consumes the cultural products of Hollywood and New York and the technology of Silicon Valley.
Right, if you look at banking (which is regulated nationally) there is very little competition between banks in EU states. There are examples in other industries.
But I didn't compare it with the US at all, all I said was: the EU was formed, in part, because people in the 60s believed that US growth was stronger because the domestic market was larger (and that scale advantages were critically important to business success). This was a very common view in the 60s in the UK too (and held by the govt which embarked on a huge investment/forced merger program to boost domestic production that ended in disaster). And it was totally wrong, as subsequent economic performance demonstrated (the reason why the EU's single market is incomplete is nothing to do with language and everything to do with politics).
And how do you explain those products being dominant in the rest of the world? The UK went through this, tried to create globally competitive firms with scale by forcing companies to merge, almost all of them went bankrupt (have you heard of British Leyland? No?) because they were mismanaged, and produced bad products no-one wanted. It was like trying to add one to one and make twenty.
But I didn't compare it with the US at all, all I said was: the EU was formed, in part, because people in the 60s believed that US growth was stronger because the domestic market was larger (and that scale advantages were critically important to business success). This was a very common view in the 60s in the UK too (and held by the govt which embarked on a huge investment/forced merger program to boost domestic production that ended in disaster). And it was totally wrong, as subsequent economic performance demonstrated (the reason why the EU's single market is incomplete is nothing to do with language and everything to do with politics).
And how do you explain those products being dominant in the rest of the world? The UK went through this, tried to create globally competitive firms with scale by forcing companies to merge, almost all of them went bankrupt (have you heard of British Leyland? No?) because they were mismanaged, and produced bad products no-one wanted. It was like trying to add one to one and make twenty.
History put us in a pretty unique position anyway, right? The list of advanced economies not blown up in WWII is pretty short, which gave us a nice lead, and probably kicked off some feedback loops.
The US loses only to Switzerland in mean wealth per capita, but ranks below even a country like Italy in median WPC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
Basically, the US 1% is much richer than other countries, but the typical American is probably less wealthy than someone in other developed countries.
Basically, the US 1% is much richer than other countries, but the typical American is probably less wealthy than someone in other developed countries.
Doesn't Australia mostly rely on its iron and coal mining? Minerals is basically 2/3d of their exports.
No. I am not sure how little you have to understand about the world (the US is also a massive commodities exporter, a good proportion of the world's trade is commodities) to think that...but no, Australia isn't just a big mining outpost.
Mining is 10% of GDP in Aus. For comparison, oil and gas is 8% of GDP in US.
Mining is 10% of GDP in Aus. For comparison, oil and gas is 8% of GDP in US.
You could have listed all those numbers and made your point without being an ass
But this shows much higher numbers for mineral exports while US is much lower. Where did you get the numbers?
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa
A key thing is the dollar's status is reserve currency. It keeps its value up despite the US being a debtor nation and amassing huge debt. Without reserve currency status its anyone's guess how things will look - probably closer to Europe.
Is the creative profession being talked about here meaningfully bound by borders? If you created a TV show, for example, all 372 million people that you mention should be potential customers. Many American productions do well in Canada, but scant few Canadian shows have succeeded in the USA.
Not necessarily borders, but I think being in the same geographic region helps. For example, Canadians interested in making TV shows might find more collaborators and funding in Los Angeles.
Technically, especially with the internet, there is no reason a Canadian show made in Canada could not be a hit in both countries. It is just the likelihoods that change.
Technically, especially with the internet, there is no reason a Canadian show made in Canada could not be a hit in both countries. It is just the likelihoods that change.
The slight bias against Canadian shows is that if they have Canadian-specific content (e.g. city, backstories, characters) that are an important part of the story, then the larger American audience will be much less likely to find it interesting.
The inverse is not true however -- the article is correct that Canadians are exposed to (almost too) much American content from an early age, leading to the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)[1] to adopt (read: mandate) minimum ratios for Canadian-specific content to be aired.[2]
[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/home-accueil.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content
The inverse is not true however -- the article is correct that Canadians are exposed to (almost too) much American content from an early age, leading to the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)[1] to adopt (read: mandate) minimum ratios for Canadian-specific content to be aired.[2]
[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/home-accueil.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content
ppl should move to india from usa per this logic
America still does “larger than life” better than anyone. If you want to be the biggest the baddest the richest the quickest the Sun God above mere mortals — this is the country to be in.
Canadians can’t afford to live anywhere that has decent jobs if they have to pay current prices. Moving to the states is the only choice most young Canadians have.
Americans respect the Canadian aesthetic. Stan Rogers embodied this perfectly [0]. Be Canadian and share your authentic Canadianess with us. Don't try to be American.
[0] https://youtu.be/vdaaPl_kZpw?t=1728
[0] https://youtu.be/vdaaPl_kZpw?t=1728
Damn Jim Lahey had a nice voice before he hit the booze
You joke but John Dunsworth I think also nicely embodies the spirit I see parent getting at: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mcQfP8k51s
qiskit(2)
Why move to America when Canada's already in America? ;P
Canada is in "The Americas", but not in "America" ;)
I think that's a colloquialism, according to several dictionaries "America" can nean the two continents.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/america
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/america
Confused European here, I thought "America" was the same as "The Americas"
“America” is the country. “The Americas” is the two continents.
Found the Argentinian.
More ambitious people always move to more developed countries in a search of better life whether it means better education, better job opportunities(greater salary), better career path etc.
Btw when somebody compares Canada to US I always remember the Canada rant from Shameless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOO9I9kvwo
Btw when somebody compares Canada to US I always remember the Canada rant from Shameless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOO9I9kvwo
I didn't watch the show so I don't known the context. Am I supposed to side with him or Canada?
A very 2022 instinct, maybe a sign of our hyper-polarized times, trying to find the side you're supposed to side with even for an obscure Youtube video.
Oooh maybe. But I think I was actually always like this and the times have come to suit me!
> people always move to more developed countries in a search of better life whether it means better education, better job opportunities(greater salary), better career path etc.
By most measures, Canada is more developed than the US.
Also, this article is about people who work in the arts, like film and music. It has nothing to do with seeking better education.
By most measures, Canada is more developed than the US.
Also, this article is about people who work in the arts, like film and music. It has nothing to do with seeking better education.
>By most measures, Canada is more developed than the US.
By what measures? Social benefits? I was speaking about industry and technology not about health care accessibility or whatever. By that criteria you can call Sweden more developed than US.
The majority of the world's most valuable companies are from US[0] so private sector wise US is superior.
[0] https://companiesmarketcap.com/
By what measures? Social benefits? I was speaking about industry and technology not about health care accessibility or whatever. By that criteria you can call Sweden more developed than US.
The majority of the world's most valuable companies are from US[0] so private sector wise US is superior.
[0] https://companiesmarketcap.com/
"You’re taught to value art that expresses a distinctly Canadian point of view. You’re taught that such a thing as a Canadian point of view exists at all and that there’s a whole set of aesthetic shorthand to convey it."
Anyone got any examples for that the author might mean with that?
Anyone got any examples for that the author might mean with that?
If there's anything distinctly Canadian - truly, than the US, is that it is officially bilingual. Of course, almost no one in English speaking Canada can speak a lick of French because of how awful French language classes are - you can get an A yet remember nothing.
I mean what would be an example of art that would (naturally or contrived) express a Canadian point of view? What does an aesthetic shorthand for it look like?
- Paintings by the Group of Seven
- The music of Newfoundland and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
- the writing of Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro
- the work of Métis artisans (clothing, decorative arts)
- music of The Tragically Hip
- The music of Newfoundland and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
- the writing of Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro
- the work of Métis artisans (clothing, decorative arts)
- music of The Tragically Hip
Thanks!
The Great White North sketches on SCTV?
In any profession, if you want to be very successful, America is your best shot.
But you can't have both cradle to grave security, and the opportunity for success. You can see that in the endless Progressive proposals to erase American billionaires in exchange for more security.
But you can't have both cradle to grave security, and the opportunity for success. You can see that in the endless Progressive proposals to erase American billionaires in exchange for more security.
> In any profession, if you want to be very successful, America is your best shot.
Perhaps a bit exaggerated, but the big market helps a lot and also has a network affect, attracting other talented people and resources from around the world.
> But you can't have both cradle to grave security, and the opportunity for success.
People in many countries provide much more security (and investment, such as education) to themselves than the US and also plenty of success, including billionaires, including Canada. The main difference is that the US has a much larger market.
Billionaires are of course a tiny portion of the population and not representative of the availability of success. For non-billionaires, many of whom can't afford an education or healthcare, success might be futher away because the Americans don't invest as much in themselves.
> Progressive proposals to erase American billionaires in exchange for more security
What does that mean, specifically?
Perhaps a bit exaggerated, but the big market helps a lot and also has a network affect, attracting other talented people and resources from around the world.
> But you can't have both cradle to grave security, and the opportunity for success.
People in many countries provide much more security (and investment, such as education) to themselves than the US and also plenty of success, including billionaires, including Canada. The main difference is that the US has a much larger market.
Billionaires are of course a tiny portion of the population and not representative of the availability of success. For non-billionaires, many of whom can't afford an education or healthcare, success might be futher away because the Americans don't invest as much in themselves.
> Progressive proposals to erase American billionaires in exchange for more security
What does that mean, specifically?
Have you ever wondered why the FAANG companies are all American? Why Elon Musk left South Africa to come to America? Why millions of people are trying to get over the border into the US?
The large market effect, as described in the GP. It can't be denied that it has significant effect. What do you ascribe it to and why? Less health care doesn't improve the economy directly.
Bernie Sanders, for instance:
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1176481898685710337
The American market is global.
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1176481898685710337
The American market is global.
i might not be at the top of my profession, but i have a better life here in canada than i had in the us. ymmv.
There’s also something to not aiming to be very successful - or borrowing success and bringing it back.
But if you move to the US for ten/twenty years to amass a pile of success and money, it may be very hard to move back afterwards.
But if you move to the US for ten/twenty years to amass a pile of success and money, it may be very hard to move back afterwards.
What would make it hard to return to Canada after twenty years?
15 years here. There are a few things.
Housing affordability: Canadian prices have skyrocketed in the past 10-20 years and have increased much more than the US.
Cost of living: it’s generally higher in Canada.
Where to live: there is much more variety in the US. For instance, there are few “quaint small towns” in Canada in comparison. The American small town/city with a historic Main Street has survived, whereas it’s a fast-vanishing thing in Canada. Much of Canada is starting to look the same in terms of the built environment and urban planning.
Access to healthcare: Canada has universal healthcare, and the system kicks in if something serious happens. But for anything not at that level, there are serious issues. For instance, depending on where you live it can be hard to find a primary care doctor. There are waiting lists for many procedures, for imaging, etc. If you have an upper middle class type situation in the US your access to health care is much, much better. I can often get in to see my doctor within 24h.
Employment opportunities: it’s much better nowadays, but the US is still the place to be in terms of variety of work and compensation.
And finally, it’s hard to leave anywhere after decades - you get used to your life and your community. Canada will always be my homeland, but it’s starting to feel a bit alien to me, in subtle ways.
Canada has changed over the past 15 years and you can’t step into the same river twice.
Housing affordability: Canadian prices have skyrocketed in the past 10-20 years and have increased much more than the US.
Cost of living: it’s generally higher in Canada.
Where to live: there is much more variety in the US. For instance, there are few “quaint small towns” in Canada in comparison. The American small town/city with a historic Main Street has survived, whereas it’s a fast-vanishing thing in Canada. Much of Canada is starting to look the same in terms of the built environment and urban planning.
Access to healthcare: Canada has universal healthcare, and the system kicks in if something serious happens. But for anything not at that level, there are serious issues. For instance, depending on where you live it can be hard to find a primary care doctor. There are waiting lists for many procedures, for imaging, etc. If you have an upper middle class type situation in the US your access to health care is much, much better. I can often get in to see my doctor within 24h.
Employment opportunities: it’s much better nowadays, but the US is still the place to be in terms of variety of work and compensation.
And finally, it’s hard to leave anywhere after decades - you get used to your life and your community. Canada will always be my homeland, but it’s starting to feel a bit alien to me, in subtle ways.
Canada has changed over the past 15 years and you can’t step into the same river twice.
The last part is really the hardest - it’s easier to move to a higher paying area when you’re young than it is to move back after you’ve grown connections to a community.
> Progressive proposals to erase American billionaires in exchange for more security.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Stop saying America for "United Stated of America", America is the continent... dumbass.
I want to do the opposite. Get away from America. Someone give me a job. I am an ubernerd!
Make money in America and dip out. Its a privileged starting point for doing just that.
Canada
lvl102(11)
tapia(4)
incomingpain(5)
jleyank(1)
[European who only read the title]
Isn't Canada already in America?
Isn't Canada already in America?
Whether "America" refers to the continent or the United States depends on the context.
The set of continents is arbitrary.
Some cultures (arbitrarily) recognize North America and South America as separate continents, whereas some others consider them to be one continent, called America.
Among many of the cultures that recognize two continents, the term “America” has drifted in meaning over time to colloquially refer to the USA. That is the sense in which “America” was meant in this headline.
Some cultures (arbitrarily) recognize North America and South America as separate continents, whereas some others consider them to be one continent, called America.
Among many of the cultures that recognize two continents, the term “America” has drifted in meaning over time to colloquially refer to the USA. That is the sense in which “America” was meant in this headline.
> the term “America” has drifted in meaning over time to colloquially refer to the USA.
Only in English speaking and non-American countries.
All of the Spanish speaking American countries are happy to call what everyone else calls "americans" "united-stateans", i.e. "estadounidense" in Spanish. Because of course it's stupid to call gringos "american", when the entire continent is called America.
This is also happening to Europe, in a lesser extent (for 2 reasons, first of which is that the EU isn't a country, and the 2nd is that most of European countries are in the EU). "European" is more often used to refer to an inhabitant of the European Union than it's used to refer to an inhabitant of Europe, the continent.
Only in English speaking and non-American countries.
All of the Spanish speaking American countries are happy to call what everyone else calls "americans" "united-stateans", i.e. "estadounidense" in Spanish. Because of course it's stupid to call gringos "american", when the entire continent is called America.
This is also happening to Europe, in a lesser extent (for 2 reasons, first of which is that the EU isn't a country, and the 2nd is that most of European countries are in the EU). "European" is more often used to refer to an inhabitant of the European Union than it's used to refer to an inhabitant of Europe, the continent.
The article is about Canada, which is (mostly) an English-speaking country.
To quote Homer Simpson "Pfft... Canada is just America Jr."
More seriously, if you weren't joking, Canada is in North America, the continent. America, the country, is the informal name of the United States of America.
More seriously, if you weren't joking, Canada is in North America, the continent. America, the country, is the informal name of the United States of America.
There are two separate continents: "North America" and "South America", which are more separate than Asia is to Europe. Sometimes people refer to them as "The Americas", in plural.
I believe it’s in North America.
Strange religion ;)
But people refer to the USA as “America” even though Canada and Mexico are also in “North America” and all the countries in South America exist also.
Even so, nobody would refer to someone from those countries as “American”.
But people refer to the USA as “America” even though Canada and Mexico are also in “North America” and all the countries in South America exist also.
Even so, nobody would refer to someone from those countries as “American”.
> Even so, nobody would refer to someone from those countries as “American”.
Maybe not in English, but it would be quite normal to do so in some other languages.
Maybe not in English, but it would be quite normal to do so in some other languages.
It's easy to become irritated at Canadians for their never-ending holier-than-thou attitude toward America and Americans, to wish they'd piss off and find a culture that isn't based around not being you, but if you think a little more about it you'll find that anger is misguided. Canadians are in an uncomfortable position. Existing comfortably requires a certain degree of ignoring your own flaws. Canadians, possibly more than anyone else in the world, are not afforded that luxury. They have a giant mirror next door that shows them a people just like them with their own naked flaws without the ability to gloss over them. This kind of constant unconsensual reminder is stressful and must breed tremendous resentment. So the next time you're annoyed at being talked down to by a Canadian, remember that it's us who deprived them of the ability to lie to themselves about everything but the ways in which they differ from Americans.
I’m British, married to a Canadian, and you need to be clear that your comment is entirely about you and your insecurities and not about Canadians.
What are you saying
I think it is really only governments that are interested in perpetuating the narrative that the US and Canada are very different. They concern themselves with Canadian identity and culture (even via direct investment) while every Canadian that I know could care less about these things. No one I know is particularly worried about Anne of Green Gables going out of style.
As a Brit living in Canada and working in the visual effects and creative industries for the last 9 years, your point about their culture being all about "not being you" really hits the mark. Canadians think they're the country the whole world loves and wants to be. The reality is they're irrelevant on the world stage. Culturally they offer the world very little. There are basically 3 maybe 4 cities. With the exception of Montreal (which has some history and culture to call its own) they all spout "diversity being our strength" - this leaves cities like Toronto and Vancouver as the most soulless, boring places I've ever had the misfortune to live in. They have no culture of their own, instead borrowing from everyone else. There is no "Toronto food", "Toronto music", "Toronto scene". Politically they're led by a smug, manipulating, self serving narssisist who calls you a racist and a Nazi yet wears blackface and suspends civil liberties, rushing through emergency war powers to deal with a protest. The healthcare system, as the last two years have shown, are completely inadequate. Quebec was locked down from 8pm while the sun was still shining for fear of overloading a health system they have done nothing to improve since the start of the pandemic. I'm counting down the days until I leave for America and never look back.
> The healthcare system, as the last two years have shown, are completely inadequate.
If by "inadequate" you mean "can be improved", then of course, all systems can be improved. If you mean it is fundamentally unsound then I feel this is completely unfounded. My family has had 3 seperate health-care events during their lifetime, the latest cancer related in an COIVD-overloaded emergency setting, that would have bankrupt us multiple times over had we been in the US (and yes, they are all remarkably healthy individuals, no diabetes, etc. in general). Even in the latest case the health-care we recieved was amazing, over a month of hospitalizatoin, for which we will see ZERO bills. The latest treatement, monoclonal antibody based chemo, ZERO bills. Was there stress? Yes, but I can hardly imagine a better overall outcome.
If you are rich, in Canada, you can get whatever healthcare you want, just like in the US. If you are middle-class or poorer, the difference betweent the two systems is so vastly different it's mind-boggling.
If by "inadequate" you mean "can be improved", then of course, all systems can be improved. If you mean it is fundamentally unsound then I feel this is completely unfounded. My family has had 3 seperate health-care events during their lifetime, the latest cancer related in an COIVD-overloaded emergency setting, that would have bankrupt us multiple times over had we been in the US (and yes, they are all remarkably healthy individuals, no diabetes, etc. in general). Even in the latest case the health-care we recieved was amazing, over a month of hospitalizatoin, for which we will see ZERO bills. The latest treatement, monoclonal antibody based chemo, ZERO bills. Was there stress? Yes, but I can hardly imagine a better overall outcome.
If you are rich, in Canada, you can get whatever healthcare you want, just like in the US. If you are middle-class or poorer, the difference betweent the two systems is so vastly different it's mind-boggling.
> Culturally they offer the world very little.
what do you mean? you say that you work in vfx but do canadians creating television and movies not count as "offering something culturally?" Not to mention the long list of actors and famous musicians/bands from canada. more specifically, I wonder what you consider to be important cultural contributions.
anyhow, your prognosis of 'borrowing from everyone else' is factually correct. canada is a land of immigrants. though, if you don't think toronto has a specific toronto food culture, you'll be disappointed when all you find is the usual gaumet of international food options in new york and la. unless if you want to tell me that italian food is somehow a cultural contribution of new york.
what do you mean? you say that you work in vfx but do canadians creating television and movies not count as "offering something culturally?" Not to mention the long list of actors and famous musicians/bands from canada. more specifically, I wonder what you consider to be important cultural contributions.
anyhow, your prognosis of 'borrowing from everyone else' is factually correct. canada is a land of immigrants. though, if you don't think toronto has a specific toronto food culture, you'll be disappointed when all you find is the usual gaumet of international food options in new york and la. unless if you want to tell me that italian food is somehow a cultural contribution of new york.
Your comments regarding our current political leadership are mostly accurate. It feels like we were living in some kind of alternate reality in some ways. The pandemic seemed to cause the worst sides of us all to come out while our government really fanned the flames. It really is inexcusable in my opinion.
I think Canada is better if you are an outdoorsy type person. Access to nature is really the primary appeal of the country in my opinion. Of course the US is awesome as well in this regard.
I think Canada is better if you are an outdoorsy type person. Access to nature is really the primary appeal of the country in my opinion. Of course the US is awesome as well in this regard.
As a Canadian I disagree with most of this. Everyone I’ve heard whine about being called a racist or a Nazi seems to in the next breath say something racist or at least homophobic. So you might want to take a look in the mirror if you’re mad about being called those things.
Also, if you want the healthcare system to improve then are you supporting parties and candidates that want to improve it? Or do you just want the Conservatives in power because they don’t call you a Nazi?
Also, if you want the healthcare system to improve then are you supporting parties and candidates that want to improve it? Or do you just want the Conservatives in power because they don’t call you a Nazi?
Trudeau called people who were waving Nazi flags Nazis. What else do you think he should have called them? Please point out specific instances in which he labelled people as Nazis other than those ... waving Nazi flags?
Also, there is no "Montreal food" as much as there is no "Toronto food". I don't know why you think there is a distinction.
The healthcare you seem to be upset about is years long effort by the conservative governments to gut it down including the current conservative government in Ontario. And yet, not a word from you about that?
Good luck for your move to US but I think you have some other things you are unhappy about and I don't think moving countries is going to help.
Also, there is no "Montreal food" as much as there is no "Toronto food". I don't know why you think there is a distinction.
The healthcare you seem to be upset about is years long effort by the conservative governments to gut it down including the current conservative government in Ontario. And yet, not a word from you about that?
Good luck for your move to US but I think you have some other things you are unhappy about and I don't think moving countries is going to help.
Given that they Nazi flags were not a statistically significant component of the protest (perhaps only one person of unknown motivation) a serious person would not have mentioned it at all. Of course, today's politicians in Canada are generally not serious people it seems which is unfortunate because of their outsized impact on everyone's lives.
I'd never heard of this senator before watching this video, but he really did summarize the situation well and seems to me to be a legitimately serious person unlike many of our current politicians (all parties).
https://youtu.be/YIZO3OhqCUY
I'd never heard of this senator before watching this video, but he really did summarize the situation well and seems to me to be a legitimately serious person unlike many of our current politicians (all parties).
https://youtu.be/YIZO3OhqCUY
One Nazi flag, many Confederate flags, and white nationalists in the group:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-swasti...
> A small number of the assembled protesters have displayed Nazi insignia, including the swastika and yellow stars of David, while others have flown the Confederate flag during these anti-government demonstrations.
> Other groups have since attached themselves to the movement, including some far-right and white nationalist elements.
What should we call these people? Your being upset at them being called Nazis says more about you than Trudeau.
Note that the protest organizers made no attempt to dissociate themselves from these and only did so in the later days of the protests.
Trudeau's criticism of his conservative colleagues was more about them not criticizing these people (which they didn't) and not calling them Nazis.
It's also telling that the protests against lockdowns criticizing Trudeau, calling for his death (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-protest-racist-deat...) were not addressed towards Doug Ford, the Ontario premier responsible for the lockdowns. No politician in Canada should get any death threats but the point I am making was no criticism was directed towards Doug Ford for something he did (the longest lockdown in North America in Ontario) but towards Trudeau, who had no role in it.
That tells you everything you need to need to know, that is, if you want to know it and not be willfully obtuse.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-swasti...
> A small number of the assembled protesters have displayed Nazi insignia, including the swastika and yellow stars of David, while others have flown the Confederate flag during these anti-government demonstrations.
> Other groups have since attached themselves to the movement, including some far-right and white nationalist elements.
What should we call these people? Your being upset at them being called Nazis says more about you than Trudeau.
Note that the protest organizers made no attempt to dissociate themselves from these and only did so in the later days of the protests.
Trudeau's criticism of his conservative colleagues was more about them not criticizing these people (which they didn't) and not calling them Nazis.
It's also telling that the protests against lockdowns criticizing Trudeau, calling for his death (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-protest-racist-deat...) were not addressed towards Doug Ford, the Ontario premier responsible for the lockdowns. No politician in Canada should get any death threats but the point I am making was no criticism was directed towards Doug Ford for something he did (the longest lockdown in North America in Ontario) but towards Trudeau, who had no role in it.
That tells you everything you need to need to know, that is, if you want to know it and not be willfully obtuse.
> A small number of the assembled protesters have displayed Nazi insignia, including the swastika and yellow stars of David, while others have flown the Confederate flag during these anti-government demonstrations.
So, it sounds like there was a small number of such people. Of course, if that's not true, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. I will not accept an argument based on guilt by association however (or in this case guilt by proximity which is even more absurd).
Finally, the truckers were protesting the federal trucker mandates (with their trucks no less) so it was not a particularly abstract demonstration. I guess these people were in the right location by your calculus but non-truckers should have disbursed to protest at their own provincial capitals. That is a reasonable argument but I think many of the protesters were also there in support of the truckers.
So, it sounds like there was a small number of such people. Of course, if that's not true, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. I will not accept an argument based on guilt by association however (or in this case guilt by proximity which is even more absurd).
Finally, the truckers were protesting the federal trucker mandates (with their trucks no less) so it was not a particularly abstract demonstration. I guess these people were in the right location by your calculus but non-truckers should have disbursed to protest at their own provincial capitals. That is a reasonable argument but I think many of the protesters were also there in support of the truckers.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8543281/covid-trucker-convoy-orga...
> Now, as the convoy descends on Ottawa with the stated aim of opposing all COVID-19 mandates, anti-hate experts allege those with white nationalist and Islamophobic views don’t just represent the fringes of the movement but are among the organizers of the convoy.
There is no guilt by association. These are the people themselves.
> Now, as the convoy descends on Ottawa with the stated aim of opposing all COVID-19 mandates, anti-hate experts allege those with white nationalist and Islamophobic views don’t just represent the fringes of the movement but are among the organizers of the convoy.
There is no guilt by association. These are the people themselves.
What do you call people that hang out with Nazis? It sounds like you are nitpicking that adjacent white supremacist groups with their own iconography (and merch) are somehow different.
That's sort of the issue with informal groups and protests. Anybody can show up, and they may or may not be rejected by the crowd at large. When the loonies are kicked out, it doesn't make the news. A left-leaning example of this is when Boogaloo Boys participate in Black Lives Matter protests. I'm not saying they're equally common, but the concept is the same.
I don't think anyone believes that these groups were a statistically significant component of the protests. Of course, if we legitimately think that Nazis and white-supremacist groups present a serious problem in Canada we should be addressing it - not using it as a kind of guilt by proximity argument to delegitimize protests of other causes.
[deleted]
Lots of Americans dream of either LA or New York, depending on their industry. I imagine in Europe, it's probably Paris and London that draws both French/British and foreigners.
Frank Sinatra had a song called New York, New York and one of the lines is "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere."
It's sort of inevitable that the largest city in the region draws talent and ambition and this gravity pool does not respect international borders. Though I wish we did a better job of fostering diversity of views from other places even within the US.
It's something I've lamented before: Even Americans get kind of brainwashed that their local culture is inferior and everything is better in New York (and California) because that's where so much of our popular media originates and is set.