Hacker News Reader

Comment by arjie | Hacker News Reader

> The U.S. remains the most desired destination for people who would like to leave their own countries permanently, but Gallup's latest data show it is less attractive than it once was

If you look at the charts, it seems that if the US is a shithole, then Canada is twice the shit hole, and France and Germany are twice that.

In fact, it doesn’t appear that there are any non-shitholes using this metric.

I think the US should facilitate immigration by probably expanding the H1B 10x and reducing the period for a green card and also overturn Euclid v Amber and NEPA (with state level CEQA style to follow) but the reality is that even an immigration-resistant US administration is far more popular than any other country as a destination; and that’s probably simply due to the fact that it’s the one Western economy that is still dynamic despite everything.

View on HN

People are moving to the states not because it's a great country, it's because they're able to make money there. More money than in their home country. This of course is not an indicator of *general* attractiveness but it still makes the country itself attractive as most of the people are seeing more money as a way to have a better life.

Right. It stinks, but I can hold my nose for a whole while I make money. Pecunia non olet.

People are able to make a lot of money there because it's a great country.

I'm not sure that logic is solid. Expats move to Saudi Arabia because they can make huge amounts of money in a short time. Is, therefore, Saudi Arabia "a great country"?

compared to the US, SA salaries are quite low

Not necessarily in the industries that employ Western expats. After all, expats come because specialized labor is required, and specialized labor can command a higher salary. There are also perks like supplied accommodation (and sometimes a car) that lets one direct so much more money to savings.

The important part is the trend. US is a great country today but it was greater a decade ago.

As someone who worked in US and left it long time back, last year was the first time I could hear ambivalent views on US from my friends who work there. They are still in US as they make a lot of money but have started to consider the alternatives.

Fact is they won't move back until they make a lot of money.

How do Dubai, SA, Qatar and similar fit into that picture?

> People are moving to the states not because it's a great country, it's because they're able to make money there.

How are people with that mentality--here for the money, but don't buy into the underlying concepts--going to affect the civic structure of the U.S.?

Just look at our government. It's not going great for us.

But this government was voted for by natives at a higher rate than by naturalized citizens. It seems odd to blame them for this.

According to Blue Rose Research’s 2024 post mortem, Trump narrowly won naturalized citizens. In a way that illustrates the problem.

The countries most immigrants come from have both liberals and conservatives. Immigration can’t change the long-term political balance. What it does instead is change what kind of left or right wing candidate is viable. The Bush/Romney GOP would have been wiped out in a landslide under 2024’s demographics. But Trump was able to win Nevada and rack up the margin in diverse states like Texas and Florida with stupid policies like “no taxes on tips.” Theatrics, handouts, and patronage is how politics works in most countries immigrants come from. Trump can play that game, the old Anglo GOP couldn’t.

Over time, American politics will more begin to resemble the politics of the places the immigrants are coming from, with guys like Mamdani instead of Carter and Trump instead of Reagan.

When somebody like Mamdani (obviously not him since he's not a native) wins a presidential primary maybe I'll concede your point. All recent Democratic nominees have resembled the "normal," centrist candidates of yore; only the Republican party has adopted the intolerant, "theatrical" third-world style of politics so far (in the figure of Trump), and again, natives have always voted for him at higher rates than naturalized citizens.

As much as it pains me to concede points to Rayiner you might want to look into the Democratic caudillos in RGV, Texas

Democrats are better at the top. But the grassroots is visibly trending towards ethnic machine politics, which is very third world. A lot of grassroots-level Democratic messaging would be illegal under Singapore’s system for maintaining unity in its multiethnic society: https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3329017/sing...

My point was that our current government is itself filled with people who are "here for the money, but don't buy into the underlying concepts" and it's been disastrous for the the civic structure of the country. I don't blame naturalized citizens specifically for electing our current administration, although many of them did. I suspect that some of those who didn't came here to get away from the kinds of corruption and abuse of authority we're seeing.

Probably not very much, considering the countries for which it's the easiest to pull off this type of move. Full naturalization naturally demands at least some commitment.

Here in Canada, before all this went down, the "work as a professional in the US, earn $$$$$, retire back in Canada or go back to a Canadian job with your pockets bursting with cash" was a fairly popular strategy in tech. I don't know how many people pulled it off in reality, but workers from either of our countries have/had some of the easiest pathways to working in the other one. I don't think either one is going to be very outraged at their neighbors coming over to work here.

In absolute terms, you can make more money. In relative terms, you'll spend more.

It doesn't scale linearly. You'd be underestimating how expensive it has become in most of the third world now-a-days. You'd be making 10x+ while spending a few times more. Spending also has a cap (depending on lifestyle). If you're in engineering your salary continues to grow with experience.

I don't know, man. For all intents and purposes, I live in a third world city state, Miami Florida. Everyone is angry, drivers are nuts, housing costs ~ x2 in less than a decade, etc. I haven't been to any third world countries, but I've been to Europe plenty and dread when returning back to the States. People seem to get by well, whatever I saw on the streets through my tourist glasses, the food tastes much much better and less expensive, and I wouldn't need 2 cars. Then there is the medical stuff and free education and more chill non-aggressive vibes. Same with our neighbors Canada. Here, it's a bloody deathmatch, last man standing.

For reference, I've for many years (35) lived in and around NYC/Brooklyn/New Jersey, LA, Las Vegas and Miami proper. Europe, I've been to Berlin, London, Paris, Strasbourg, Munich, and some I forget. It's a night and day difference and it baffles me that someone from there would want to live here. Cheers.

I mean that's fair. I disagree as a European though :).

If you take a good SWE salary in Munich (example 80k), and compare it to an average/solid software shop in the states that gives 200k. Expenses can comparatively quadruple and you will still have much more at the end of the month to do with as you please. You can live in so many places in the states where this salary is realistic. But only a handful of places in Europe even have salaries that could come close as a concept. Switzerland that could get you there has even higher expenses and even there only FAANG offers such salaries.

And outside of software, doctors in the states make many multiples compared to European ones. Most blue collar workers make multiples, lawyers make multiples, pretty much any job you take you can make much more. I agree that life is better in Europe and I'd choose to live here 9/10 times, but that's down to mentality and the fact there's a reason we're less productive than you.

This is a rabbity rabbit hole, but I'll leave with that I'd rather be in Paris, Berlin or London, make less money, but be able to go downstairs to a caffe and take a walk on a side of Siene, Rhine or Thames with my dog. Then hop on a fast train and be elsewhere fast. That's living, for me, but it’s late and is a fantasy.

I agree 100%.

I've seen claims that the median full-time income is ~€4500/month in Germany. That's around $60k/year, or ~$70k/year after adjusting for purchasing power. Which is a bit more than the equivalent figure in the US.

Many jobs pay really well in the US, but many more pay poorly. The top 10% are responsible for ~50% of consumer spending, and the typical American is not that well off.

Germany, like many other European countries, relies more on exports and less on domestic demand than the US. As a natural consequence, its immigration policy favors skilled immigration to keep top wages down. If the wages grow too quickly, your exports become more expensive than those of your competitors, and the entire economy suffers. And when the economy grows, it's better to use the surplus to raise typical wages than top wages.

Stats are skewed by size and geography of the country.

This is an issue of trajectories. Perception of Canada and France has not shifted significantly in the observation period; the US dropped by an unambiguous 38%. So it's not about what the US was, it's about what it's become/becoming. An example of Newton's first law, if you will.

Or at least that's how I am interpreting the parent post...

I don't think the OP is saying that the US is a shit-hole today. The US still has a lot of people who want to move there. By their definition, it's not a shit-hole yet. They're saying that US is going in the direction of becoming a shit-hole.

>expanding the H1B 10x

One of the worst ideas I've ever seen, and completely out of touch with American workers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com