Leave for the US now if you can, while TN still exists.
Canada at least used to be cleaner and safer and only slightly poorer than the US but since 2019 the divergence has been incredible and now I regret not leaving sooner.
Anyone even slightly above average in intelligence or work ethic will do better in the US, don't let online leftist echo chambers convince you otherwise!
> Anyone even slightly above average in intelligence or work ethic will do better in the US,
How? Like my life in Canada is pretty great. The political and cultural discourse in the US seems worse, and I'm comfortable enough with my current income level that more salary isn't going to make my life notably better.
The one thing I'd go for is fewer working hours, but I don't see a glut of American companies hiring for 4-day-a-week remote jobs. (And if they were, they could just hire me in Canada for that matter.)
99% of Vancouver by area does not have anything resembling 'SF level drug disorder', and if your 'nice US suburb' didn't just punt all of its fucking problems into its nearest downtown, it too would have an East Hastings, or three.
It probably has a lower homicide rate (and a vastly lower vehicular homicide rate) per capita than your 'nice US suburb'.
That same 'nice US suburb' is also, for some reason, packed to the gills with terrified people who have an inexplicable desire to own guns for 'self-defense'. Self-defense from what..?
Having been to quite a number of what I would call 'nice US suburbs', and knowing people from them, a significant fraction of them act like they are living in some lawless Mad Max hellscape. How do you square this circle?
The percentage of the population that needs to work will continue to go down because of aging and automation although you might not see it as a reduction of hours for a given individual employed person.
Already 38% of Americans aged 16 or older do not work and are not looking for work and yet are not dying from hunger or exposure. This would have seemed like a utopian dream to someone from the 1800s.
Being 16, 17 and 18 and not working is expected, given they are still at school. A good percentage of people aged 18 to 24 are studying full time.
This stat seems a bit misleading and doesn't support the "you can live and not work argument". How many of those people are retired? How many of those are under 18? How many of those simply cannot work? How many of those live at home or are on food stamp?
Maybe you should ask AI to review your statistics and reasoning. A large amount of 16-22 year old kids are in school. And retirees 80+ are retired. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the idea of what would happen to the economy if there is an employment collapse. I don't know that this would also seem like a utopian dream to someone in the 1800s; I'm not sure what that means. I think someone from the 1800s would be surprised by a great many things and that statistic would probably be low on their list.
government, where two thirds of spending comprises transfer payments that help households bridge the gap between their spending, retirement, and health care needs and their wages and salaries [1]
The market comment linked in the paragraph above that one features a toy model of the US economy which illustrates this (section "Equilibrium in output and income"). [2]
My comment didn’t really portray what I’m getting at. Food insecurity is obviously an indicator for financial confidence. I know people can afford food, on top of the fact they will choose to pay for it because they have to. I know people who have chosen to eat and fall behind on rent. The point is, if you’re worried about your meals, you’re not living the rest of your life with confidence. It’s not something to be brushed aside.
Ok but the corporations are ultimately owned by humans who are alive so there is no way around the generational wealth transfer other than destroying wealth.
The US healthcare system is incredible compared to socialized systems if you can afford it. That's at least part of the reason it represents 17% of GDP. The same procedure I needed had a 2 day wait time in the US and a 10 month wait time in Canada.
“If you can afford it” is not efficient. It’s merely priority queue vs FIFO wherein it is decided that some folks get to skip lines based on some arbitrary merit.
If it were efficient it would clear the queue with max throughput. This is not so.
The US has (without much debate) the absolute best healthcare on Earth if money isn't an issue. There are so many more experts in so many more fields with access to so much more cutting edge technology that...well rich people travel to the US to get care.
Yeah, what does it matter that the best healthcare, only available to the globally rich, American or not, is in the US?
A much better measurement of a given country's healthcare system in more meaningful terms is average outcomes of the whole population, like life expecrsncy, child mortality rates, etc.
you are a funny man. i live in the one of the wealthiest areas of the US, c with good healthcare: specialists are very hard to get. service rationing is everywhere. we are losing doctors.
your argument is ideological, not rooted in reality.
Are you getting faster or better outcomes in America than when taking _private_ treatment in Canada, or do you need the treatment in Canada to he public for your claim to hold?
I imagine that you can pony up to be seen in two days in Canada too, and also that the single-payer system keeps those private practice honest, so you'd pay less for your fast turnaround than in Freedonia. I may be wrong, of course.
I'm trying to take your comment seriously, but it's very difficult. My partner is a physician in the US. People are ending up in ERs because it takes a year for them to see the specialist who could have prevented the same problem.
"If you can afford it" is true everywhere. You can also see a specialist in just about any country in a couple days if you've got the money to fly there; often cheaper and faster to travel outside the US to get care, depending on what you need.
"Public" healthcare in the US is a joke. Insurance costs more and covers less every year.
Depressingly, they bought a house in 1995 before the prices exploded. You need a 94th percentile income in Toronto to barely qualify for the average house.
Health care costs at the end of your life can eat everything you've ever saved and more. Cost of maintenance on housing is increasing and property insurance rates + HOA rates are going up. This idea only works under ideal conditions.
I'd be curious if the folks that are advocating for people to provide support to their adults kids also expect those adult kids to keep their parents living with them when elderly. I know assisted living facilities charge exorbitant amounts of money, to the point it's often advised to setup a trust, so the parent's assets are no longer viewed as their assets. These facilities apparently charge based on assets, where if you have none then suddenly the monthly cost to live there equates only to the value of your Social Security Income payments.
Unfortunately that is the sad reality of the state of fiscal literacy in the country. We have work to do to prepare people for their own futures. Pensions were nice but this transition to private plans has been rough, with far too many believing their Social Security Income alone will be enough to sustain them in their golden years.
Canada at least used to be cleaner and safer and only slightly poorer than the US but since 2019 the divergence has been incredible and now I regret not leaving sooner.
Anyone even slightly above average in intelligence or work ethic will do better in the US, don't let online leftist echo chambers convince you otherwise!