At one point I really wanted to move abroad (I have nothing against America, just thought it would be fun for a few years). But the career opportunities are much worse - software developers for instance get paid like 1/3 as much in Europe, yet cost of living in European cities is just as high. Not worth it.
Americans emigrate at extremely low rates. WSJ is trying to make a story out of nothing IMO.
I have expatriated to China personally. I am a native born, white American. The simple truth of it is that Trump's immigration policy has made it nearly impossible to ensure my significant other will not be detained and deported even if she is in the country legally. Additionally, I earn more working in China than I did working at an American university.
I am sure the trend is not a big problem yet, but people should look to the UK if they want to see how bad it can get. Nearly every foreigner I meet here in Beijing is from that part of the world. It is no wonder why, as the taxes and how little they get for those taxes would make any sane man consider leaving.
I still don't think emigration is much of a bearish indicator on the US as it stands today. On one level, it is a social trend enabled by technology (both as a consumer and a producer), and perhaps also by the fertility collapse: easier to take your laptop job to Thailand when you don't have kids.
On the other, as economic indicators go, it's actually a bullish one to the extent we're just seeing people arbitrage high US incomes against the low COL of a growing basket of countries that have ceased converging towards US median incomes (and in many cases actively lost ground against higher-end US incomes.)
I've mentioned in other replies that I feel the post-war American emphasis on the nuclear family specifically (as opposed to the extended family) was a mistake. Obviously the nuclear family is important, but throughout history most people in most cultures haven't tried raising young children either as solo parents (hardest of all) or just as a married couple without support nearby. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, or if you go back farther even tribes and clans etc played meaningful roles in child rearing. Not only does this distribute the burden better, but it helps children learn to socialize and understand a wider range of personalities and perspectives from a younger age. Now, I don't think the modern "poly" movement is the way to recreate this, as you need strong ties and long-term community continuity with members feeling real investment in the children. Blood relatives have obvious investment in children on average. And even tightly knit tribes and clans, while the children may not have been blood relations, they were still future members of the group who everyone would depend on so there was real incentive to see them grow up and succeed.
At one point I really wanted to move abroad (I have nothing against America, just thought it would be fun for a few years). But the career opportunities are much worse - software developers for instance get paid like 1/3 as much in Europe, yet cost of living in European cities is just as high. Not worth it.
Americans emigrate at extremely low rates. WSJ is trying to make a story out of nothing IMO.
I have expatriated to China personally. I am a native born, white American. The simple truth of it is that Trump's immigration policy has made it nearly impossible to ensure my significant other will not be detained and deported even if she is in the country legally. Additionally, I earn more working in China than I did working at an American university.
I am sure the trend is not a big problem yet, but people should look to the UK if they want to see how bad it can get. Nearly every foreigner I meet here in Beijing is from that part of the world. It is no wonder why, as the taxes and how little they get for those taxes would make any sane man consider leaving.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-used-to-flock-to-the-uk-now-theyre-fleeing-2025-6
Love the Josephus scholar, working my way thru it. Could be explosive 🧨.
- a street apologist
I still don't think emigration is much of a bearish indicator on the US as it stands today. On one level, it is a social trend enabled by technology (both as a consumer and a producer), and perhaps also by the fertility collapse: easier to take your laptop job to Thailand when you don't have kids.
On the other, as economic indicators go, it's actually a bullish one to the extent we're just seeing people arbitrage high US incomes against the low COL of a growing basket of countries that have ceased converging towards US median incomes (and in many cases actively lost ground against higher-end US incomes.)
I've mentioned in other replies that I feel the post-war American emphasis on the nuclear family specifically (as opposed to the extended family) was a mistake. Obviously the nuclear family is important, but throughout history most people in most cultures haven't tried raising young children either as solo parents (hardest of all) or just as a married couple without support nearby. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, or if you go back farther even tribes and clans etc played meaningful roles in child rearing. Not only does this distribute the burden better, but it helps children learn to socialize and understand a wider range of personalities and perspectives from a younger age. Now, I don't think the modern "poly" movement is the way to recreate this, as you need strong ties and long-term community continuity with members feeling real investment in the children. Blood relatives have obvious investment in children on average. And even tightly knit tribes and clans, while the children may not have been blood relations, they were still future members of the group who everyone would depend on so there was real incentive to see them grow up and succeed.