6 ms·

> The U.S. ranks twenty-eighth on the Q.N.I., behind nearly every E.U. country. Kalin told me that the U.S.’s rank is partly due to its restrictive immigration

> The U.S. ranks twenty-eighth on the Q.N.I., behind nearly every E.U. country. Kalin told me that the U.S.’s rank is partly due to its restrictive immigration policy, and partly because “there are so many weapons, and a high incarceration rate.” Why does the fact that there are "so many weapons, and a high incarceration rate" make the US a bad place to live for millionaires? There is a lot of subjectivity here. If you want to live in America, then an American citizenship is the most important one to have. However, if you want to live abroad, an American citizenship is terrible because you still have to pay income tax no matter where in the world you are. (I do like measuring travel freedom though!)

Spooky23 10y ago
There are people these days that have a fear of traveling outside of major US metropolitan areas because of issues like this. They are feeding into that fear that a traveler would have.
- dbcurtis 10y ago
  Now that is complete irrational. The major metropolitan areas are far less safe. And in fact, the more gun control, the less safe.
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Idk, my wife has no fear of getting shot in China, because there's no guns at all. Also the murder rate is like 5x lower.
    - hugh4 10y ago
      > my wife has no fear of getting shot in China As long as she doesn't say anything nice about democracy or anything. Have we really forgotten the Tiananmen Square Massacre so quickly?
      - dmoy 10y ago
        Sure I should preface that - she has no fear of getting shot by random citizens. The 6/4 issue is a separate thing. In fact many in her generation are unaware that it happened. First time I made a reference, she wouldn't believe me for like a week. But still, the salient point is that there exist governments with no gun control and minimal gun murders, high gun control and minimal gun murders, as well as low gun control and low murders, and low gun control and high murders. I think any statement of causality needs some massive citation there...
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > The major metropolitan areas are far less safe That mostly depends on who you are and what you're doing. I've felt scared in cities more often than I've felt scared in rural areas, but the most objectively dangerous situations I've ever been in have all occurred in rural and suburban areas. E.g., it's far easier for someone unfamiliar with an area to avoid "the bad part of town" in urban areas than in rural areas. And suburbs are way more tricky than rural areas in this respect. > And in fact, the more gun control, the less safe Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. No, I think that the causation might be reversed -- dangerous urban communities might feel the need for gun control, while rural communities that may be supported by hunting do not.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - liamcardenas 10y ago
      The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their rankings. A better reason would be: "statistically you are more likely to be killed and/or unfairly imprisoned due to corruption" which is not what he said. > Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. Correct, there is no correlation between gun control and safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myth... But in defense of the guy in the article, he did not mention "gun control" but rather the amount of guns in total -- which may actually have a positive correlation with homicide rates: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... this, of course, is most likely due the fact that people will try harder to get guns if they live in a more dangerous area
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >The major metropolitan areas are far less safe. That's not actually true, statistically. There are more crimes because there are more people. If you look at violent crimes per capita, urban areas as a whole are safer. On the other hand I'm not sure what value those statistics have for individuals. When you're in a city the neighborhood you're in matters a whole lot, especially if you're not from that city. Where I grew up there are some neighborhoods that are pretty close to being crime free, and there are others I won't go for fear of my safety.
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      This is false. Per capita, violent crime (especially homicide) rates are higher in urban than suburban or rural areas. There is a ton of data on this, and it isn't close or even debatable. There are other factors (accident rate) that can make urban areas look safer, but not violent crime. The FBI reports the 2011 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 410.3 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 382.1, and for nonmetropolitan counties it was 186.1.1 The FBI reports metropolitan cities had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate known to law enforcement of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2011. Cities outside metropolitan areas had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate of 4.4 per 100,000 persons while non-metropolitan counties had a rate of 3.1 per 100,000 persons. http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2014/urban-rural-crime-statistics-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2014/urba...
      - gozur88 10y ago
        http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-country-it-turns-out-that-cities-are-the-safest-places-to-live/ http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-country-it...
        garrettgrimsley 10y ago
        You made a claim about violent crime and then posted a link containing information that doesn't support your stance. Your link lumps crime and accidental injury together. The thread was about violent crime.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
This "QNI" value that law firm invented seems mostly of interest to wealthy people who want to visit a lot of countries with short visa delays (if any) and little to no red tape at points of entry. QNI seems minimally useful/relevant to people who live in a country full time and rarely if ever leave that country. For them, other indices and statistics are of greater interest.
- sudhirj 10y ago
  Also taxes. Tax rates and laws differ based on citizenships.
visarga 10y ago
> The U.S. ranks twenty-eighth on the Q.N.I., behind nearly every E.U. country. Ha! It sits right under Romania and Bulgaria. And to think that people of these two countries have long dreamed to emigrate to US (for decades, before joining EU). Now, much less so.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  The tired, poor huddled masses from there might have dreamed about emigrating. The multi-millionaires who can afford to buy the passport are scoffing at the thought - they have properties in Biarritz and Nice and Holland Park if life in Sofia becomes too dreary, and going through FATCA and US income tax compliance sounds like a right chore...
klunger 10y ago
The US likely also rates low because, unless you are also a resident of the US, it opens you up to a lot of tax compliance nightmares, re: FATCA. See https://medium.com/@RachelHeller/https-medium-com-rachelheller-why-i-renounced-my-us-citizenship-e1f77b1969ce#.74abmfp5r https://medium.com/@RachelHeller/https-medium-com-rachelhell...
gumby 10y ago
> If you want to live in America, then an American citizenship is the most important one to have. A green card is all you need; the only real difference is that you don't have free speech rights -- though your speech rights are still stronger than in Europe, which is otherwise a much better place to live. I live and work in the bay area because it's a fabulous and exciting place to work -- best in the world of my experience, but in overall QoL I rank the US_significantly below western Europe and Australia. No place is perfect!

Spooky23 10y ago

There are people these days that have a fear of traveling outside of major US metropolitan areas because of issues like this. They are feeding into that fear that a traveler would have.

dbcurtis 10y ago
Now that is complete irrational. The major metropolitan areas are far less safe. And in fact, the more gun control, the less safe.
- dmoy 10y ago
  Idk, my wife has no fear of getting shot in China, because there's no guns at all. Also the murder rate is like 5x lower.
  - hugh4 10y ago
    > my wife has no fear of getting shot in China As long as she doesn't say anything nice about democracy or anything. Have we really forgotten the Tiananmen Square Massacre so quickly?
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Sure I should preface that - she has no fear of getting shot by random citizens. The 6/4 issue is a separate thing. In fact many in her generation are unaware that it happened. First time I made a reference, she wouldn't believe me for like a week. But still, the salient point is that there exist governments with no gun control and minimal gun murders, high gun control and minimal gun murders, as well as low gun control and low murders, and low gun control and high murders. I think any statement of causality needs some massive citation there...
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > The major metropolitan areas are far less safe That mostly depends on who you are and what you're doing. I've felt scared in cities more often than I've felt scared in rural areas, but the most objectively dangerous situations I've ever been in have all occurred in rural and suburban areas. E.g., it's far easier for someone unfamiliar with an area to avoid "the bad part of town" in urban areas than in rural areas. And suburbs are way more tricky than rural areas in this respect. > And in fact, the more gun control, the less safe Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. No, I think that the causation might be reversed -- dangerous urban communities might feel the need for gun control, while rural communities that may be supported by hunting do not.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - liamcardenas 10y ago
    The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their rankings. A better reason would be: "statistically you are more likely to be killed and/or unfairly imprisoned due to corruption" which is not what he said. > Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. Correct, there is no correlation between gun control and safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myth... But in defense of the guy in the article, he did not mention "gun control" but rather the amount of guns in total -- which may actually have a positive correlation with homicide rates: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... this, of course, is most likely due the fact that people will try harder to get guns if they live in a more dangerous area
- gozur88 10y ago
  >The major metropolitan areas are far less safe. That's not actually true, statistically. There are more crimes because there are more people. If you look at violent crimes per capita, urban areas as a whole are safer. On the other hand I'm not sure what value those statistics have for individuals. When you're in a city the neighborhood you're in matters a whole lot, especially if you're not from that city. Where I grew up there are some neighborhoods that are pretty close to being crime free, and there are others I won't go for fear of my safety.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    This is false. Per capita, violent crime (especially homicide) rates are higher in urban than suburban or rural areas. There is a ton of data on this, and it isn't close or even debatable. There are other factors (accident rate) that can make urban areas look safer, but not violent crime. The FBI reports the 2011 rate of violent crime known to law enforcement within metropolitan areas was 410.3 per 100,000 persons. The rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons in cities outside metropolitan areas was 382.1, and for nonmetropolitan counties it was 186.1.1 The FBI reports metropolitan cities had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate known to law enforcement of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2011. Cities outside metropolitan areas had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate of 4.4 per 100,000 persons while non-metropolitan counties had a rate of 3.1 per 100,000 persons. http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2014/urban-rural-crime-statistics-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2014/urba...
    - gozur88 10y ago
      http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-country-it-turns-out-that-cities-are-the-safest-places-to-live/ http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-country-it...
      - garrettgrimsley 10y ago
        You made a claim about violent crime and then posted a link containing information that doesn't support your stance. Your link lumps crime and accidental injury together. The thread was about violent crime.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

This "QNI" value that law firm invented seems mostly of interest to wealthy people who want to visit a lot of countries with short visa delays (if any) and little to no red tape at points of entry. QNI seems minimally useful/relevant to people who live in a country full time and rarely if ever leave that country. For them, other indices and statistics are of greater interest.

sudhirj 10y ago
Also taxes. Tax rates and laws differ based on citizenships.

visarga 10y ago

> The U.S. ranks twenty-eighth on the Q.N.I., behind nearly every E.U. country. Ha! It sits right under Romania and Bulgaria. And to think that people of these two countries have long dreamed to emigrate to US (for decades, before joining EU). Now, much less so.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
The tired, poor huddled masses from there might have dreamed about emigrating. The multi-millionaires who can afford to buy the passport are scoffing at the thought - they have properties in Biarritz and Nice and Holland Park if life in Sofia becomes too dreary, and going through FATCA and US income tax compliance sounds like a right chore...

klunger 10y ago

The US likely also rates low because, unless you are also a resident of the US, it opens you up to a lot of tax compliance nightmares, re: FATCA. See https://medium.com/@RachelHeller/https-medium-com-rachelheller-why-i-renounced-my-us-citizenship-e1f77b1969ce#.74abmfp5r https://medium.com/@RachelHeller/https-medium-com-rachelhell...

gumby 10y ago

> If you want to live in America, then an American citizenship is the most important one to have. A green card is all you need; the only real difference is that you don't have free speech rights -- though your speech rights are still stronger than in Europe, which is otherwise a much better place to live. I live and work in the bay area because it's a fabulous and exciting place to work -- best in the world of my experience, but in overall QoL I rank the US_significantly below western Europe and Australia. No place is perfect!