And yet you moved to the US.

In most of my jobs in Europe(Austria specifically) I couldn't walk to my workplace because most tech companies in my current city put their offices in ugly concrete industrial techno parks outside the city where I don't want to live, meaning driving to work mostly as public transportation there is slow busses only every 30 minutes or one hour of biking. Similarly my GF needs to drive 40 minutes to work outside the city, to one of the few employers in her field. Not everyone lives and works in the city center to be able to walk to work.

So walking to work is such a weird and subjective metric since not all companies in everyone's' area of work will be clustered in your vicinity of your house unless you're lucky or you make active efforts to keep moving close to work which might be in undesirable areas for living.

>your doctor

My current one yeah, but she's terrible and to change her, the only one I found that accepts new patients is on the other side of town so no walking there either, unless I like walking for an hour each direction every time.

MY point is Europe can be highly spread out as well, with people and businesses fleeing inner cities due to space constraints and rent costs, leading to commute distances too long to walk economically. That's why you see traffic jams at highway ramps at rush hour. It's not like those people were too stupid to realize they could walk to work instead of driving if that was an option.

You can prove it by how many canadians move to work in the US versus how many Americans move to work in Canada. This discrepancy will scale if immigration barriers to the two countries would be the same, but since they're not we have to extrapolate based on other data.

Nobody would mind the lower Canadian salaries if they also came with a matched lower CoL, but that's not what's happening IRL. Similar issues across the EU where some very expensive to live areas don't pay proportionally high so the issue isn't necessarily pay but CoL. However as a worker your only option is demanding more money from your employer as you can't lower the CoL of the area. So there we are.

>The European Union does not have a points and lottery based system as it's sole mechanism of entry the way Canada does.

That's not a pro for the EU citizens as they get lower quality immigrants than Canada or anglophone countries with a stricter points system.

>I think a heuristic like that beats a point system which simply encourages gaming behavior anyway.

Blue card system is also heavily gamed thanks to unscrupulous EU employers wanting to wage dump the local workforce, and much more easily because there's no multiple points criteria.

That definitely is for profit. They aren't researching climate change for the love of the game, but because agriculture, oil futures, real estate development, insurance policies, all depend on predicting climate developments.

Over what period of time?

>Believe it or not, not every person in this planet wants to move to the US.

No, but if emigrating to the US was just as easy as to Canada, very few would go there over the US. Similar with EU. Ambitious people don't like being lowballed.

And how did you come up with that conclusion? Are you reading minds? No, I genuinely asked to know, since many factors are important, there's no winner out of the gate.

But since you showed you can't argue in good faith and need to start accusing people out of the gate, I'll leave the conversation here and let you be. Good day.

How are you having a great quality of life if you're unemployed?

>unemployment isn't a great metric for evaluating societies.

IDK man, being unemployed is not great. Not having money sucks.

What metrics do you think are better?

Depends on the industry. All the researchers I know in academia are just wasting government grant money not delivering anything useful. Their words, not mine.

Some is useful shure, a lot is bullshit though.

He's not entirely wrong though. Industry makes the advancements that actually supposed to sell and be profitable on the free market. Academia is all over the place, as not everything being researched there can be used commercially, often it's just to get grant money, push papers and raise their egos amongst their peers.

But what about "free healthcare". Don't americans want socialized healthcare over their despised privatized system?

> - points and lottery based immigration system that penalizes them for each year you age after 30

Many countries with socialized healthcare do this. They only want young people and don't want older people who are a risk at becoming a burden to the state before they paid a lot into the system. After a certain age or health status, many workers, even locals not just immigrants, start to become a net negative to the welfare state, consuming more resources in care than they contribute back, so you need a constant stream of young healthy workers to keep the ponzi scheme going.

US being private healthcare doesn't give a damn since your health conditions are your own problem.

>Canada's immigration system is just structurally tilted toward brain drain. It's all stick and no carrot.

And yet they have record immigration rates, mostly from india. So it seems there's plenty of desperate people on the planet that don't even need a carrot, they prefer the Canadian stick because the situation back in their home is so much worse than the canadian stick.

However, I do think that if you're relying on a stream of desperate people from all over the world to replenish your own brain drain because you manage to push away your most valuable people, then you're doing it wrong and it's not gonna be sustainable, you're just putting band aids on major structural issues to cover the rot, and eventuall y the piper will have to be paid.

In which major democratic western country don't the elites get wealthier? In fact, the top 10% asset owners saw the biggest post-covid recovery, which the rest stagnated or are in decline. Not defending China but are own oligarchs are just as savvy at enriching themselves while screwing us over.

Yeah but is that a jailable offense though? What about his freedom of speech?

Or should we just lock up everyone who says things we don't like?

Only naive laymen or newcomers to Germany think it's not possible. German business leaders, lawyers and politicians know exactly how much corruption and scamming is going on in the business sector, and it's not a little.

>first instinct will often be to come after the people trying to expose the scandal, as has happened in the case of Wirecard.

That was purely malicious to try to protect Wirecard, not because the regulators couldn't possibly imagine corruption and law breaking exists, that was the story they used as cover for their corruption.

Like you're a regulator and instead of doing the thing you were hired for and look at the evidence The Economist showed you, you instead "use your instincts" to decide not to do your job and not look into Wirecard because you can't imagine something bad can ever happen? Come on! All those regulators should have been fired and tried for corruption and/or accessory to crime.