9 ms·

>Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American. Is that true, or just the authors' speculation

>Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American. Is that true, or just the authors' speculation? Although it is easily explained. Everyone wants to be American because the USA, of all the countries in the world offers the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of people. They are the top of the food chain, in less nationalistic terms. (i'm not American btw but i can see the truth).

bwb 5y ago
That isn't true if you mean in terms of achieving the classic American dream… Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and others are moving more people out of lower/middle class to middle/upper class as a percentage. I do not know in terms of raw numbers but via % we are behind.
- version_five 5y ago
  The "classic american dream" I believe involves being able to move up through hard work. At least in Canada, if we are moving people up class-wise it's by the government subsidizing them more than it is by rewarding hard work. So I believe the GPs point still stands.
  - bwb 5y ago
    That is not true based on the data. Everyone in the world tries to move up through hard work, connections, and whatever advantages they are able to press. "Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity" https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/empamericandreamreportpdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  If you move to the USA from the developing world or even Eastern Europe, regardless of what job you do your salary immediately soars above whatever you made in your country of origin. Taxation on many consumer goods is also likely to be lower. (For example, electronics can be expensive elsewhere due to high import duties or VAT.) Of course, cost of living in the USA is also much higher, but nevertheless lots of immigrants feel that they have moved up in life just because of the higher wages and consumeristic lifestyle now available to them.
  - RGamma 5y ago
    At this point I think the EU should just set aside a nice space somewhere and make it a raw capitalist, no taxes, no regulations, no safety net zone. "Talent" seems to like that environment.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - bwb 5y ago
      That would be terrible for anyone living there, as would the environment, and the environment of every country around that country, etc. Regulation = Civilization, Taxes = Civilization, Safety Net = Civilization Now that doesn't mean you want a regulatory nightmare, the USA has real problems with license monopolies and city regs in some areas, but you also don't want unrestricted capitalism like the USA has that destroys people, society, and the common environment. Europe has a lot of work to do as well but at least they grasp this fundamental concept. The middle ground between these two is always hard to nail perfectly.
- akarma 5y ago
  America is certainly the country with the most opportunity for the most people. A shift that has occurred from the 1950s to present is that there is less of a guarantee of an upper-middle-class lifestyle through a moderate [1] amount of effort. That easier opportunity, however, was unique to the era. Prior to 1930, immigrants knew that America was a place for exceptionally hard work and tons of opportunity and freedom - that was the American dream. Not high taxation and government-funded class movement from lower-middle to upper-middle. [1] 40 hours a week, one full-time job for an established corporate company supporting a family
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    Wasn't taxation very high during the period describe, and declining gradually since then? I also thought home ownership was one of the main generators of wealth for families, and wasn't that government assisted in some way? (Not a historian)
    - jandrewrogers 5y ago
      No, taxation was not very high. Some tax rates were very high but they had an extensive range of deductions that don't exist today. The effective tax rates, what people actually paid as a percentage of gross income, were similar to today. They lowered tax rates simultaneous with eliminating deductions, making the changes over time roughly neutral in terms of taxes paid.
  - somewhereoutth 5y ago
    You all work so hard for almost nothing (apart from 'stuff', that is now mostly made in China). In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life - judged by quality of food, things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!), freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'), and time to spend with people important to you.
    - bluejellybean 5y ago
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  Yet people in most of Western Europe (discounting Switzerland and Luxembourg and maybe Norway) are objectively poorer than even the poorest American states.
  - ardit33 5y ago
    Yes. when I lived in Sweden, I noticed that Swedes in general have less stuff. Smaller housing, fewer cars, less ability to buy stuff, and even go out. The average engineer salary was almost half (about 60%) of those in NYC and SF, while prices coffee/going out in Stockholm were almost the same as in NYC. Rent prices were lower though. But, their quality of life seemed higher overall. Less stressful in general, more vacations and time off, more thoughtful planing of their cities, etc. So, it seems like a tradeoff. If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, while you'd struggle in the US. But if you are a skilled worker (even blue collar, like plumber or electrician), you'd do better in the US. I'd rather be a barista in Sweden than in the US, but I'd rather be an engineer in the US than in Sweden.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, The problem here is that for the Swedes to enjoy their social benefits, they cannot afford to have too many low skilled workers. The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. So while sure, you are better off being a low skilled worker in Sweden just as you are better off being a high skilled worker in the U.S., but that's because these two economies are structured very differently.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        > The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. How is that not backwards? If you have 'an army of low skilled workers' then there's no room 'to absorb so many low skilled migrants', surely? If you have 'a high-skilled economy' then surely you are 'having enormous problems' filling your low-skilled jobs, and welcome migrants? Indeed, isn't Sweden famously highly accepting of migrants and in particular refugees? Presumably skewed low-skilled if at all? (Neither Swedish nor American, so not pushing an agenda, just commenting. :))
- kortilla 5y ago
  It’s harder to move to Canada though.
- 13415 5y ago
  I believe people who move to the US also like the comparably low bureaucracy, as well as opportunities in some sectors. Personally, I've lost my interest in moving to the US (or even visiting it) a long time ago, around the time of Bush Jr. for various reasons, but I'm still convinced that founding a successful company with low starting capital is easier in the US than almost anywhere else. The same is true for acting, music, show business and all the support like film cutting, audio engineering, special effects, etc. Despite the increased competition, your career prospects in these areas will probably be much higher if you move to L.A. or NY than if you stay somewhere else in the world.
- fatsdomino001 5y ago
  Canada is about to revert to the mean in a very hard way though, so I wouldn't count on that statistic too much.
  - willhslade 5y ago
    Care to elaborate?
  - version_five 5y ago
    I'm also curious to have more details. I'm Canadian and historically have been a big proponent of our country, to the point of smugness. But I'm currently very bearish on our future and curious to hear what others are thinking.
    - BlueTankEngine 5y ago
      I would be very interested in hearing more about what changed your outlook.
    - swiley 5y ago
      The continued closure of our shared land border doesn't indicate to me that you guys are headed in the direction of reason.
f38zf5vdt 5y ago
From the 1880s to 2000 this may have been the case, but I don't think it is anymore. Any country with public health insurance that is decent is more attractive than the US. People are not blind, they see Americans dying of diabetes because they can't afford insulin that they attempted to crowdfund. [1] The US has evolved into a modern dystopia under the first-past-the-post system and cloture in the senate. I think the election of Donald Trump was the signal to the rest of the world that America's democracy may not even be a democracy. Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy from the American political system as possible. [2] I'm not sure where the country will end up. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-after-starting-a-gofundme-campaign-for-insulin/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-right-to-vote-is-under-assault/619173/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-...
- newfriend 5y ago
  > The US has evolved into a modern dystopia > America's democracy may not even be a democracy > Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy Here's the ideological intensity that the article mentioned. This is delusional. The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    I'm not from the US, so I suppose I don't know. One of my uncles immigrated there and works in a VA hospital. The stories he tells me, of people dying of ailments that are common in the third world, seems to suggest otherwise.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Everything f38zf5vdt said and that you've quoted here can be true (at least subjectively) while your own reply is also true. You're not actually addressing or contradicting their arguments, such as they are, just declaring them categorically invalid because "capitalism."
  - 5y ago
underwater 5y ago
The "truth" you see is the designed outcome of soft diplomacy through the export of US culture via movies, television and the internet. I know lots of non-US folk who love the values and opportunities they experience in America. But I also know lots of others who don't. I see my own country adopting more and more aspects from America: individualism over community, the excessive consumerism, the Starbuck-ification of every facet of our lives, that I think are more harmful than beneficial.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I am curious how being "individualists" had them end up with something like Homeowners Associations. I am an individualist myself to a relatively high degree and I do not understand how something like that can be tolerated at all.
  - bjcy 5y ago
    My first inclination is that the individualism has turned from (admittedly, rosy nostalgia follows here) a propensity towards creative expression and unique identity amongst the whole, into an assertion of control that serves my needs at the expense of others. In my experience, while HOAs can be well-intentioned, they provide easy opportunity for people to build small kingdoms, and for most, being a king is quite tempting.
  - underwater 5y ago
    A HOA certainly doesn't seem to be about community. Community would be about embracing differences and respecting each person's right to live as they wish. HOAs seems to be more about using bureaucracy to control others and force them to do what the person with power wants. There is a classic quote “There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. I think the dark side of individualism is that it can create the mindset that other's success comes at your expense, which pitches people and groups against each other, and makes differences a threat and not a strength. It also also discourages people from acknowledging their own limitations, because if someone is smarter or better than you then they will be more successful, and that means you lose.
jltsiren 5y ago
Things may look a bit different from a (West) European perspective. I know enough people who used to live in the US but left, partly because they did not want to inflict US citizenship upon their children. Among all wealthy countries, US citizenship is probably the least desirable one if you don't plan to live there permanently. In any case, the expat/immigrant situation is familiar to many Europeans as well. The real difference is that most European countries are nation states, while the US is a land of immigrants and their descendants. "American" is an adopted identity. You become American if you have lived in the US long enough and consider yourself American. In contrast, "German" is an assigned identity. You are German if other Germans generally see you as German. You cannot become fully integrated into a nation state as long as other people pay attention to your origins.
- kazen44 5y ago
  this is a major factor to consider. Also, the 20th century saw massive changes in where people lived compared to "their country". prior to world war 1, this was a far more mixed affair (see, the austrian-hungarian empire and the greeks in anatolia).
- jeofken 5y ago
  Some Americans I know make a big difference between being a settler nation, like those who came to where there was no civilisation but hunters/gatherers, vs immigrants who move into the blooming civilisation
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    Ah, yes, the “Daughters of the American Revolution” types.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    That's like, the difference between one ship full of Pilgrims and every subsequent ship, or between one wagon train and every subsequent wagon train, or between the people on the Mayflower and their kids (who showed up in a society that already existed).
antihipocrat 5y ago
Does the USA really offer the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of poor people as a share of the total population, of all countries in the world? Why do so many people from the USA believe this tripe without question? It feels like the 'shining city on the hill' was extremely effective propaganda, for the domestic population.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  Anecdotally, it feels true. I, like many Americans, know an enormous number of immigrants and poor people that moved into the middle and upper-middle class through hard work and discipline. There is still plenty of opportunity to do that US if you apply yourself. Economic mobility is very high in the US (which is distinct from social mobility). When I've worked in Europe, it has always been evident that this is much harder to achieve there for poor people and immigrants. The entire social system is setup to limit the ability of ambitious people to rise above whatever station they were born into in a way that isn't really a thing in the US. This contributes to why engineering wages are relatively low in Europe.
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    “Cutting down the tall poppy”
  - zokula 5y ago
    > Economic mobility is very high in the US Not so much. The U.S. is not even in the top 10 of countries for Economic mobility.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jandrewrogers 5y ago
      The US ranks very high in terms of absolute mobility. Measures of relative mobility are only comparable between countries if they have similar wage compression curves, which is also partially a function of country size. US wages are much less compressed than in Europe -- see also: engineering wages -- so they aren't meaningfully comparable in relative terms. Given two countries with the same median wage (PPP), a 20k increase in income in one country may be relatively "economically mobile" and a 40k increase in income in the other is not, even though the income increase is much larger in real terms. When average people talk about economic mobility, they mean the second case; using relative mobility is misleading.
yongjik 5y ago
While the sentiment may be true for Americans living in America, if an American decides to emigrate to a different country then they obviously think living in this new country is better for them - unless they move back later, I don't think emigrating Americans remain "American" for long, certainly not after a generation or two.
skissane 5y ago
> emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American I don't think that's true of Australia. American Australians tend to assimilate pretty well, and after a while people tend to mostly forget they were Americans originally, even if they still have a bit of an accent. The Australian politician Kristina Keneally is an example. She was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. But I don't think anyone really thinks of her as "an American". She's an Australian politician. You might like her politics or you might dislike them, but nobody really cares about where she was born and grew up. She's one of us now. The Australian media has even taken to (at times) calling Virginia Roberts Giuffre (the most notable public victim of Jeffrey Epstein) "an Australian", without qualification. (She married an Australian man, had kids with him, now they live here.) Whereas the American media just calls her an American. The Australian media always wanted to view Mel Gibson as an Australian, even when he said that he himself identified as an American rather than as an Australian. (I think they are less keen on that now that he has made himself a bit of a persona non grata through his behaviour. America, you can have him.)
- Clewza313 5y ago
  Australia, like the US, is an immigrant nation, you can move there from anywhere and be considered an Australian within a generation.
  - skissane 5y ago
    In which case the real difference here is not where one is immigrating from (America or elsewhere), but rather where one is immigrating to: an immigrant-dominated society like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US, maybe Argentina too; or one dominated by people whose ancestors have lived there for countless centuries, such as most European, Middle Eastern, African or Asian countries. The original quote we were discussing, "Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American" is mistaken because it is viewing it primarily in terms of Americanness, instead of the nature of the society receiving the immigrant
    - 5y ago
spdy 5y ago
One reason they dont give up citizenship is that you are "declared" death and the IRS will come an collect there share. It can become quite expensiv for expats.

bwb 5y ago

That isn't true if you mean in terms of achieving the classic American dream… Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and others are moving more people out of lower/middle class to middle/upper class as a percentage. I do not know in terms of raw numbers but via % we are behind.

version_five 5y ago
The "classic american dream" I believe involves being able to move up through hard work. At least in Canada, if we are moving people up class-wise it's by the government subsidizing them more than it is by rewarding hard work. So I believe the GPs point still stands.
- bwb 5y ago
  That is not true based on the data. Everyone in the world tries to move up through hard work, connections, and whatever advantages they are able to press. "Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity" https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/empamericandreamreportpdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe...
Mediterraneo10 5y ago
If you move to the USA from the developing world or even Eastern Europe, regardless of what job you do your salary immediately soars above whatever you made in your country of origin. Taxation on many consumer goods is also likely to be lower. (For example, electronics can be expensive elsewhere due to high import duties or VAT.) Of course, cost of living in the USA is also much higher, but nevertheless lots of immigrants feel that they have moved up in life just because of the higher wages and consumeristic lifestyle now available to them.
- RGamma 5y ago
  At this point I think the EU should just set aside a nice space somewhere and make it a raw capitalist, no taxes, no regulations, no safety net zone. "Talent" seems to like that environment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bwb 5y ago
    That would be terrible for anyone living there, as would the environment, and the environment of every country around that country, etc. Regulation = Civilization, Taxes = Civilization, Safety Net = Civilization Now that doesn't mean you want a regulatory nightmare, the USA has real problems with license monopolies and city regs in some areas, but you also don't want unrestricted capitalism like the USA has that destroys people, society, and the common environment. Europe has a lot of work to do as well but at least they grasp this fundamental concept. The middle ground between these two is always hard to nail perfectly.
akarma 5y ago
America is certainly the country with the most opportunity for the most people. A shift that has occurred from the 1950s to present is that there is less of a guarantee of an upper-middle-class lifestyle through a moderate [1] amount of effort. That easier opportunity, however, was unique to the era. Prior to 1930, immigrants knew that America was a place for exceptionally hard work and tons of opportunity and freedom - that was the American dream. Not high taxation and government-funded class movement from lower-middle to upper-middle. [1] 40 hours a week, one full-time job for an established corporate company supporting a family
- nielsbot 5y ago
  Wasn't taxation very high during the period describe, and declining gradually since then? I also thought home ownership was one of the main generators of wealth for families, and wasn't that government assisted in some way? (Not a historian)
  - jandrewrogers 5y ago
    No, taxation was not very high. Some tax rates were very high but they had an extensive range of deductions that don't exist today. The effective tax rates, what people actually paid as a percentage of gross income, were similar to today. They lowered tax rates simultaneous with eliminating deductions, making the changes over time roughly neutral in terms of taxes paid.
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  You all work so hard for almost nothing (apart from 'stuff', that is now mostly made in China). In Europe people have a much more relaxed attitude to work, yet somehow pretty much everyone has a very high quality of life - judged by quality of food, things working properly (e.g. washing machines and public restroom doors!), freedom from fear (e.g. of losing their job, getting ill, or interactions with the 'police'), and time to spend with people important to you.
  - bluejellybean 5y ago
rejectedandsad 5y ago
Yet people in most of Western Europe (discounting Switzerland and Luxembourg and maybe Norway) are objectively poorer than even the poorest American states.
- ardit33 5y ago
  Yes. when I lived in Sweden, I noticed that Swedes in general have less stuff. Smaller housing, fewer cars, less ability to buy stuff, and even go out. The average engineer salary was almost half (about 60%) of those in NYC and SF, while prices coffee/going out in Stockholm were almost the same as in NYC. Rent prices were lower though. But, their quality of life seemed higher overall. Less stressful in general, more vacations and time off, more thoughtful planing of their cities, etc. So, it seems like a tradeoff. If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, while you'd struggle in the US. But if you are a skilled worker (even blue collar, like plumber or electrician), you'd do better in the US. I'd rather be a barista in Sweden than in the US, but I'd rather be an engineer in the US than in Sweden.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > If you are a blue collar or unskilled worker, Sweden would have been better, The problem here is that for the Swedes to enjoy their social benefits, they cannot afford to have too many low skilled workers. The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. So while sure, you are better off being a low skilled worker in Sweden just as you are better off being a high skilled worker in the U.S., but that's because these two economies are structured very differently.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      > The swedish economy is a high skilled economy, perhaps the highest skilled in the world. There are very few low-skill jobs, unlike the US which has an army of low skilled workers filling low skilled jobs. This is why the U.S. is able to absorb so many low skilled migrants whereas Sweden is having enormous problems finding jobs for their low skilled migrants. How is that not backwards? If you have 'an army of low skilled workers' then there's no room 'to absorb so many low skilled migrants', surely? If you have 'a high-skilled economy' then surely you are 'having enormous problems' filling your low-skilled jobs, and welcome migrants? Indeed, isn't Sweden famously highly accepting of migrants and in particular refugees? Presumably skewed low-skilled if at all? (Neither Swedish nor American, so not pushing an agenda, just commenting. :))
kortilla 5y ago
It’s harder to move to Canada though.
13415 5y ago
I believe people who move to the US also like the comparably low bureaucracy, as well as opportunities in some sectors. Personally, I've lost my interest in moving to the US (or even visiting it) a long time ago, around the time of Bush Jr. for various reasons, but I'm still convinced that founding a successful company with low starting capital is easier in the US than almost anywhere else. The same is true for acting, music, show business and all the support like film cutting, audio engineering, special effects, etc. Despite the increased competition, your career prospects in these areas will probably be much higher if you move to L.A. or NY than if you stay somewhere else in the world.
fatsdomino001 5y ago
Canada is about to revert to the mean in a very hard way though, so I wouldn't count on that statistic too much.
- willhslade 5y ago
  Care to elaborate?
- version_five 5y ago
  I'm also curious to have more details. I'm Canadian and historically have been a big proponent of our country, to the point of smugness. But I'm currently very bearish on our future and curious to hear what others are thinking.
  - BlueTankEngine 5y ago
    I would be very interested in hearing more about what changed your outlook.
  - swiley 5y ago
    The continued closure of our shared land border doesn't indicate to me that you guys are headed in the direction of reason.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

From the 1880s to 2000 this may have been the case, but I don't think it is anymore. Any country with public health insurance that is decent is more attractive than the US. People are not blind, they see Americans dying of diabetes because they can't afford insulin that they attempted to crowdfund. [1] The US has evolved into a modern dystopia under the first-past-the-post system and cloture in the senate. I think the election of Donald Trump was the signal to the rest of the world that America's democracy may not even be a democracy. Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy from the American political system as possible. [2] I'm not sure where the country will end up. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-after-starting-a-gofundme-campaign-for-insulin/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-right-to-vote-is-under-assault/619173/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/06/the-...

newfriend 5y ago
> The US has evolved into a modern dystopia > America's democracy may not even be a democracy > Republicans are currently digging themselves in to remove as much democracy Here's the ideological intensity that the article mentioned. This is delusional. The smartest, most driven people still come to the US to start businesses and seek fortune, because it's the best place in the world to do so.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  I'm not from the US, so I suppose I don't know. One of my uncles immigrated there and works in a VA hospital. The stories he tells me, of people dying of ailments that are common in the third world, seems to suggest otherwise.
- krapp 5y ago
  Everything f38zf5vdt said and that you've quoted here can be true (at least subjectively) while your own reply is also true. You're not actually addressing or contradicting their arguments, such as they are, just declaring them categorically invalid because "capitalism."
- 5y ago

underwater 5y ago

The "truth" you see is the designed outcome of soft diplomacy through the export of US culture via movies, television and the internet. I know lots of non-US folk who love the values and opportunities they experience in America. But I also know lots of others who don't. I see my own country adopting more and more aspects from America: individualism over community, the excessive consumerism, the Starbuck-ification of every facet of our lives, that I think are more harmful than beneficial.

FpUser 5y ago
I am curious how being "individualists" had them end up with something like Homeowners Associations. I am an individualist myself to a relatively high degree and I do not understand how something like that can be tolerated at all.
- bjcy 5y ago
  My first inclination is that the individualism has turned from (admittedly, rosy nostalgia follows here) a propensity towards creative expression and unique identity amongst the whole, into an assertion of control that serves my needs at the expense of others. In my experience, while HOAs can be well-intentioned, they provide easy opportunity for people to build small kingdoms, and for most, being a king is quite tempting.
- underwater 5y ago
  A HOA certainly doesn't seem to be about community. Community would be about embracing differences and respecting each person's right to live as they wish. HOAs seems to be more about using bureaucracy to control others and force them to do what the person with power wants. There is a classic quote “There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. I think the dark side of individualism is that it can create the mindset that other's success comes at your expense, which pitches people and groups against each other, and makes differences a threat and not a strength. It also also discourages people from acknowledging their own limitations, because if someone is smarter or better than you then they will be more successful, and that means you lose.

jltsiren 5y ago

Things may look a bit different from a (West) European perspective. I know enough people who used to live in the US but left, partly because they did not want to inflict US citizenship upon their children. Among all wealthy countries, US citizenship is probably the least desirable one if you don't plan to live there permanently. In any case, the expat/immigrant situation is familiar to many Europeans as well. The real difference is that most European countries are nation states, while the US is a land of immigrants and their descendants. "American" is an adopted identity. You become American if you have lived in the US long enough and consider yourself American. In contrast, "German" is an assigned identity. You are German if other Germans generally see you as German. You cannot become fully integrated into a nation state as long as other people pay attention to your origins.

kazen44 5y ago
this is a major factor to consider. Also, the 20th century saw massive changes in where people lived compared to "their country". prior to world war 1, this was a far more mixed affair (see, the austrian-hungarian empire and the greeks in anatolia).
jeofken 5y ago
Some Americans I know make a big difference between being a settler nation, like those who came to where there was no civilisation but hunters/gatherers, vs immigrants who move into the blooming civilisation
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  Ah, yes, the “Daughters of the American Revolution” types.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That's like, the difference between one ship full of Pilgrims and every subsequent ship, or between one wagon train and every subsequent wagon train, or between the people on the Mayflower and their kids (who showed up in a society that already existed).

antihipocrat 5y ago

Does the USA really offer the greatest opportunities to the greatest number of poor people as a share of the total population, of all countries in the world? Why do so many people from the USA believe this tripe without question? It feels like the 'shining city on the hill' was extremely effective propaganda, for the domestic population.

jandrewrogers 5y ago
Anecdotally, it feels true. I, like many Americans, know an enormous number of immigrants and poor people that moved into the middle and upper-middle class through hard work and discipline. There is still plenty of opportunity to do that US if you apply yourself. Economic mobility is very high in the US (which is distinct from social mobility). When I've worked in Europe, it has always been evident that this is much harder to achieve there for poor people and immigrants. The entire social system is setup to limit the ability of ambitious people to rise above whatever station they were born into in a way that isn't really a thing in the US. This contributes to why engineering wages are relatively low in Europe.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  “Cutting down the tall poppy”
- zokula 5y ago
  > Economic mobility is very high in the US Not so much. The U.S. is not even in the top 10 of countries for Economic mobility.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jandrewrogers 5y ago
    The US ranks very high in terms of absolute mobility. Measures of relative mobility are only comparable between countries if they have similar wage compression curves, which is also partially a function of country size. US wages are much less compressed than in Europe -- see also: engineering wages -- so they aren't meaningfully comparable in relative terms. Given two countries with the same median wage (PPP), a 20k increase in income in one country may be relatively "economically mobile" and a 40k increase in income in the other is not, even though the income increase is much larger in real terms. When average people talk about economic mobility, they mean the second case; using relative mobility is misleading.

yongjik 5y ago

While the sentiment may be true for Americans living in America, if an American decides to emigrate to a different country then they obviously think living in this new country is better for them - unless they move back later, I don't think emigrating Americans remain "American" for long, certainly not after a generation or two.

skissane 5y ago

> emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American I don't think that's true of Australia. American Australians tend to assimilate pretty well, and after a while people tend to mostly forget they were Americans originally, even if they still have a bit of an accent. The Australian politician Kristina Keneally is an example. She was born in Nevada, grew up in Ohio, didn't move to Australia until her 20s. But I don't think anyone really thinks of her as "an American". She's an Australian politician. You might like her politics or you might dislike them, but nobody really cares about where she was born and grew up. She's one of us now. The Australian media has even taken to (at times) calling Virginia Roberts Giuffre (the most notable public victim of Jeffrey Epstein) "an Australian", without qualification. (She married an Australian man, had kids with him, now they live here.) Whereas the American media just calls her an American. The Australian media always wanted to view Mel Gibson as an Australian, even when he said that he himself identified as an American rather than as an Australian. (I think they are less keen on that now that he has made himself a bit of a persona non grata through his behaviour. America, you can have him.)

Clewza313 5y ago
Australia, like the US, is an immigrant nation, you can move there from anywhere and be considered an Australian within a generation.
- skissane 5y ago
  In which case the real difference here is not where one is immigrating from (America or elsewhere), but rather where one is immigrating to: an immigrant-dominated society like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US, maybe Argentina too; or one dominated by people whose ancestors have lived there for countless centuries, such as most European, Middle Eastern, African or Asian countries. The original quote we were discussing, "Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American" is mistaken because it is viewing it primarily in terms of Americanness, instead of the nature of the society receiving the immigrant
  - 5y ago

spdy 5y ago

One reason they dont give up citizenship is that you are "declared" death and the IRS will come an collect there share. It can become quite expensiv for expats.