In the 2000s, I lived in Canada on a working holiday visa and toward the end of a long, dark winter I got a cheap charter flight to Cancun for a week's break from the weather. This was during the Bush era, when there was talk of the "United States of Canada", a division of North America roughly into Canada and the coasts in one country and the rest in another country. So maybe I was primed to see it, but the sense of there being two types of Americans was stark. I didn't stay in Cancun itself, but did the backpacker thing around the Yucatan Peninsula where I met lots of Americans who I thought of as "normal" - basically like any of the people one meets when travelling.
Then there was another cohort whose ignorance was truly staggering. On an eco tour, I shared a canoe with a middle-aged couple who were in Mexico for the third time. We also had a local in our canoe, who was there with her five-year-old son and husband who both ended up in a different canoe. At one point the canoes were separated and came together again and the little boy started saying, "Hola!" and waving. The American woman loudly said to her husband, "What's he saying? Oh, he's so cute! What's he saying?"
The "normal" Americans didn't seem any more capable of relating to this cohort than I was. I wish I could put my finger on what it is that makes them unique. Obviously there are ignorant people in Australia and the UK, but there's something about the assertiveness of American ignorance that is remarkable. Maybe it's a demographic thing, in that there are large areas where "normal" people are in the minority while the ignorant dominate. That leads to a pandering to the kind of attitudes and behaviours that are marginalised in Australia.
There are - and have been for most of the century - more Americans living in Mexico than you might think. The figure which I keep seeing online, in this context, is approximately one million.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans who do move permanently to Mexico are likely to be retirees (especially former military personnel, former civil servants, former clergy, and former schoolteachers) who found that their pensions back home were buying them less and less, and who were only one heart attack away from a $500,000 hospital bill. The preponderant dreadfulness of American education - both in terms of exiguous academic achievement and in terms of proneness to massacres - was often another factor, though one less likely to affect retirees than to affect the parents of school-age children.
Anyhow, many of these American expats seem to have a pretty pleasant time on Mexican soil. While some parts of Mexico are so crime-ridden that only a fool would choose to stay there, other parts appear to be as safe and blandly agreeable as Connecticut. In those parts, standards of health care and dental care appear comparable to Connecticut's too, although they cost far less.
But (again, I'm going on anecdotal evidence here) Americans desirous of this pleasant time must be already competent in Spanish. Or else they must possess a rock-solid determination to learn that tongue's basics as soon as possible.
Only about 12% of Mexicans, I believe, are fluent in English. The days when Billy Bob Bubba of Biloxi could spend decades in Latin America yelling English-language abuse at the 'beaners,' 'greasers,' 'spics,' and 'wetbacks' - while refusing even to acquire enough Spanish to buy a cup of coffee - are gone now, not before time. There are now anti-vilification laws in Mexico, as in many other lands, and Billy Bob Bubba might well find these laws being enforced against him.
And the ruling class of Mexico City, unlike that of Washington DC, takes a very dim view indeed of illegal immigrants. An American who tries to enter Mexico illegally, or who stays there when he has exceeded his residence permit, is *out*. No ifs. No buts.
Mexico (not least for linguistic reasons) wouldn't be my idea of a dream residence. Yet plenty of foreigners, including plenty of Americans, find it more congenial than most of the US itself is nowadays.
I once knew an American (now dead) so enraged by Bush Junior's rule that he vowed to become the first illegal immigrant in the entire history of Haiti. Alas, he never acted on his vow.
No doubt Americans are somewhat different than other members of the Anglosphere (and different in different ways from different other members), but I suspect a greater factor is that emigration is very hard. Even emigration to Canada is a long and complex process, even assuming that it is possible, which it will not be for many Americans. The USA makes immigration very difficult, and thus other states tend not to roll out the red carpet for US citizens (reciprocity and all that).
I emigrated from the USA (not to Canada) some twenty years ago (officially), and I was both very lucky in the ability to get a working/residence visa, but even then it took several years, and a great deal of effort even to acquire permanent residency - and more for citizenship. I know some Americans who are planning emigration (were already before this election), and even though they are retired and thus do not need to worry about work visas, it remains a long and complex process.
Of course, if an American wants to spend six months out of the year elsewhere, then it may be considerably easier. But actual emigration is hard.
All international migration is difficult, but millions of people move between rich and (largely) democratic countries*. And, with the exception of post-Schengen Europe, US-Canada appears to be among the easiest moves to make.
There are much stronger reasons for people in poor and undemocratic countries to move, which is why I’m focusing on migration within the rich world.
Yes, international migration is always difficult, but it is particularly difficult in the case of the USA. As you note in the original text, it is not just that Americans don't migrate as much as citizens of other states, but also "Migration from other rich countries to the US is very limited."
This is - at least in part - because the USA makes migration extremely difficult - both immigration and emigration. Apart from the issue of reciprocity I mentioned earlier, there are also things like US tax and banking laws that relate to emigration. If one is a US citizen living abroad, then one remains subject to US taxation, and this also means sometimes onerous banking rules. There have been instances where banks outside the USA have refused to allow Americans to have accounts because the reporting requirements for expat Americans are considered excessive.
There are other things involved, of course, cultural factors and the like.
Americans, even educated and "well-traveled" ones, tend to know surprisingly little about the rest of the world, and particularly about what it is like to live elsewhere. Even some who consider - or even attempt - emigration often have very little understanding of what it will involve.
Trump might like the Danes, but they don't like him. According to this aggregated survey, they were the least likely of Europeans to support Trump if they'd had a vote. 96% would have voted for Harris.
Here in my adopted country of the Netherlands, 87% would have voted for Harris. According to another poll I read, even the majority of the Wilderesque far-right would not have voted for him.
Hi John, can I please ask some Trump economics questions?
1. With Trump in full control of both houses and the court, and with him installing cronies into key positions, what do you think is the chance that he does a full Liz Truss, and crashes the economy?
2. If so, how wide and deep might such an economic downturn extend?
3. And given that the rest of the world has no control over such events from occuring, could Trump's ambition and lack of restraint prove a lesson for the rest of the world for what not to do?
While I'm at it, can I please note my surprise at multiple articles I've seen in various places expressing 'at least Trump only has 1 term' and 'the Democrats have 2 years to challenge in the next election'. Both of these ideas sound like false hope that Trump won't do any of these things:
a. become a dictator,
b. conduct more gerrymandering, and
c. be succeeded by someone equally if not more cunning and yet abhorrent.
After all, I thought all commentators understood that Trump was the symptom, not the cause of the USA's troubles?
Well, back in 2004-05 after Bush's election, we saw the writing on the wall in the US -not only with regard to the political direction, but also with prevailing economics and thus I became one of the million Americans who is now an Australian, with no intention of ever going back.
Nevertheless as per a recent comment, we got the consolation prize.
As a person anecdote, due to my accent from the Pacific Northwest, I'm nearly always presumed to be Canadian, which is interesting as this wasn't the case during the brief time I lived in the UK (Wales).
It seems to me that the situation in the USA is the polar opposite of what it is in Australia. The one common thing is the desire of overseas migrants close to Australia to emigrate, just like there is in the southern parts of the USA. But that is about the only common factor. We have no land borders. You have to be able to swim away from sharks and crocodiles to sneak into Australia.
For left wing residents living in Australia, the arrival of a right wing government leaves them few choices. Instead of an easy drive over to Canada, the trip to New Zealand is not for the faint hearted. I once spent an extended stop over at Auckland International airport. My ears were hurting by the time I was able to depart for Argentina. The use of vowels by the Kiwis is not to be tolerated. Now the Kiwis are lovely people. In a war you want them standing by your side. But living among them is only for any Australian who is deaf.
And to the north we have Papua New Guinea. This is our Mexican border region. It is just a short boat ride from the last Australian island in the Torres Strait to the PNG border. To the north of that country lies Fiji, Tonga, Western Soma and the other Melanesian islands. Now the people of these islands are like the Central Americans who try to get to the USA. They face poverty on a daily basis. The extra impetus to emigrate to Australia is climate change. Their homeland beach properties are disappearing during the high tides. Like the Central American poor, they have no long term future in their country.
We don’t have a Cuban like republic near us. The next best thing is East Timor. But there are few immigrants in Australia from this country.
No it looks like the Aussies who hate right wing governments, well they are stuck here for the duration. Looking to Europe and the UK will not get them out of this country. I once crossed from France to the UK. The third degree I got from the UK border control officer amused me. When I told him my profession was an economist, he sarcastically asked me what book I had published. I had to assure him that I was only staying in the UK for eight days. As if I would stay there forever. If the Kiwi accent is grating, the Pommie accent is nauseating.
No, you Aussie who hate right wing governments will just have to suck it up. There is no where else for you unless you are super rich.
I knew one gay couple who moved from the US to Australia because George W Bush was elected in 2000. But they had already moved from New York to California (by car) after one of them was sacked for having a gay wedding.
"Chattering classes" is useless as a descriptive term, but helpful in signalling your own tribal affiliation. And since it can only be used by someone engaged in chatter, it's a bit self-defeating.
In the 2000s, I lived in Canada on a working holiday visa and toward the end of a long, dark winter I got a cheap charter flight to Cancun for a week's break from the weather. This was during the Bush era, when there was talk of the "United States of Canada", a division of North America roughly into Canada and the coasts in one country and the rest in another country. So maybe I was primed to see it, but the sense of there being two types of Americans was stark. I didn't stay in Cancun itself, but did the backpacker thing around the Yucatan Peninsula where I met lots of Americans who I thought of as "normal" - basically like any of the people one meets when travelling.
Then there was another cohort whose ignorance was truly staggering. On an eco tour, I shared a canoe with a middle-aged couple who were in Mexico for the third time. We also had a local in our canoe, who was there with her five-year-old son and husband who both ended up in a different canoe. At one point the canoes were separated and came together again and the little boy started saying, "Hola!" and waving. The American woman loudly said to her husband, "What's he saying? Oh, he's so cute! What's he saying?"
The "normal" Americans didn't seem any more capable of relating to this cohort than I was. I wish I could put my finger on what it is that makes them unique. Obviously there are ignorant people in Australia and the UK, but there's something about the assertiveness of American ignorance that is remarkable. Maybe it's a demographic thing, in that there are large areas where "normal" people are in the minority while the ignorant dominate. That leads to a pandering to the kind of attitudes and behaviours that are marginalised in Australia.
In 1992 when I became an Australian citizen there were 70,000 Yanks here [AUS population 17M]
Today there are 26M Australians with only 30,000 more Americans!
There are - and have been for most of the century - more Americans living in Mexico than you might think. The figure which I keep seeing online, in this context, is approximately one million.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans who do move permanently to Mexico are likely to be retirees (especially former military personnel, former civil servants, former clergy, and former schoolteachers) who found that their pensions back home were buying them less and less, and who were only one heart attack away from a $500,000 hospital bill. The preponderant dreadfulness of American education - both in terms of exiguous academic achievement and in terms of proneness to massacres - was often another factor, though one less likely to affect retirees than to affect the parents of school-age children.
Anyhow, many of these American expats seem to have a pretty pleasant time on Mexican soil. While some parts of Mexico are so crime-ridden that only a fool would choose to stay there, other parts appear to be as safe and blandly agreeable as Connecticut. In those parts, standards of health care and dental care appear comparable to Connecticut's too, although they cost far less.
But (again, I'm going on anecdotal evidence here) Americans desirous of this pleasant time must be already competent in Spanish. Or else they must possess a rock-solid determination to learn that tongue's basics as soon as possible.
Only about 12% of Mexicans, I believe, are fluent in English. The days when Billy Bob Bubba of Biloxi could spend decades in Latin America yelling English-language abuse at the 'beaners,' 'greasers,' 'spics,' and 'wetbacks' - while refusing even to acquire enough Spanish to buy a cup of coffee - are gone now, not before time. There are now anti-vilification laws in Mexico, as in many other lands, and Billy Bob Bubba might well find these laws being enforced against him.
And the ruling class of Mexico City, unlike that of Washington DC, takes a very dim view indeed of illegal immigrants. An American who tries to enter Mexico illegally, or who stays there when he has exceeded his residence permit, is *out*. No ifs. No buts.
Mexico (not least for linguistic reasons) wouldn't be my idea of a dream residence. Yet plenty of foreigners, including plenty of Americans, find it more congenial than most of the US itself is nowadays.
I once knew an American (now dead) so enraged by Bush Junior's rule that he vowed to become the first illegal immigrant in the entire history of Haiti. Alas, he never acted on his vow.
No doubt Americans are somewhat different than other members of the Anglosphere (and different in different ways from different other members), but I suspect a greater factor is that emigration is very hard. Even emigration to Canada is a long and complex process, even assuming that it is possible, which it will not be for many Americans. The USA makes immigration very difficult, and thus other states tend not to roll out the red carpet for US citizens (reciprocity and all that).
I emigrated from the USA (not to Canada) some twenty years ago (officially), and I was both very lucky in the ability to get a working/residence visa, but even then it took several years, and a great deal of effort even to acquire permanent residency - and more for citizenship. I know some Americans who are planning emigration (were already before this election), and even though they are retired and thus do not need to worry about work visas, it remains a long and complex process.
Of course, if an American wants to spend six months out of the year elsewhere, then it may be considerably easier. But actual emigration is hard.
All international migration is difficult, but millions of people move between rich and (largely) democratic countries*. And, with the exception of post-Schengen Europe, US-Canada appears to be among the easiest moves to make.
There are much stronger reasons for people in poor and undemocratic countries to move, which is why I’m focusing on migration within the rich world.
Yes, international migration is always difficult, but it is particularly difficult in the case of the USA. As you note in the original text, it is not just that Americans don't migrate as much as citizens of other states, but also "Migration from other rich countries to the US is very limited."
This is - at least in part - because the USA makes migration extremely difficult - both immigration and emigration. Apart from the issue of reciprocity I mentioned earlier, there are also things like US tax and banking laws that relate to emigration. If one is a US citizen living abroad, then one remains subject to US taxation, and this also means sometimes onerous banking rules. There have been instances where banks outside the USA have refused to allow Americans to have accounts because the reporting requirements for expat Americans are considered excessive.
There are other things involved, of course, cultural factors and the like.
Americans, even educated and "well-traveled" ones, tend to know surprisingly little about the rest of the world, and particularly about what it is like to live elsewhere. Even some who consider - or even attempt - emigration often have very little understanding of what it will involve.
Trump might like the Danes, but they don't like him. According to this aggregated survey, they were the least likely of Europeans to support Trump if they'd had a vote. 96% would have voted for Harris.
https://europeelects.eu/2024/11/04/u-s-election-europeans-would-vote-for-harris-if-they-could/
Here in my adopted country of the Netherlands, 87% would have voted for Harris. According to another poll I read, even the majority of the Wilderesque far-right would not have voted for him.
Hi John, can I please ask some Trump economics questions?
1. With Trump in full control of both houses and the court, and with him installing cronies into key positions, what do you think is the chance that he does a full Liz Truss, and crashes the economy?
2. If so, how wide and deep might such an economic downturn extend?
3. And given that the rest of the world has no control over such events from occuring, could Trump's ambition and lack of restraint prove a lesson for the rest of the world for what not to do?
While I'm at it, can I please note my surprise at multiple articles I've seen in various places expressing 'at least Trump only has 1 term' and 'the Democrats have 2 years to challenge in the next election'. Both of these ideas sound like false hope that Trump won't do any of these things:
a. become a dictator,
b. conduct more gerrymandering, and
c. be succeeded by someone equally if not more cunning and yet abhorrent.
After all, I thought all commentators understood that Trump was the symptom, not the cause of the USA's troubles?
I think he will do crazy stuff, particularly with tariffs, but finance markets will be happy in the short run because of tariffs.
On your second point, I agree.
Well, back in 2004-05 after Bush's election, we saw the writing on the wall in the US -not only with regard to the political direction, but also with prevailing economics and thus I became one of the million Americans who is now an Australian, with no intention of ever going back.
Welcome to the best club in the world! But, on the data I cited, we have only 100 000 members coming from the USA
Oops. Maybe more to follow, though.
Nevertheless as per a recent comment, we got the consolation prize.
As a person anecdote, due to my accent from the Pacific Northwest, I'm nearly always presumed to be Canadian, which is interesting as this wasn't the case during the brief time I lived in the UK (Wales).
Given recent events, I'm fine with that.
It seems to me that the situation in the USA is the polar opposite of what it is in Australia. The one common thing is the desire of overseas migrants close to Australia to emigrate, just like there is in the southern parts of the USA. But that is about the only common factor. We have no land borders. You have to be able to swim away from sharks and crocodiles to sneak into Australia.
For left wing residents living in Australia, the arrival of a right wing government leaves them few choices. Instead of an easy drive over to Canada, the trip to New Zealand is not for the faint hearted. I once spent an extended stop over at Auckland International airport. My ears were hurting by the time I was able to depart for Argentina. The use of vowels by the Kiwis is not to be tolerated. Now the Kiwis are lovely people. In a war you want them standing by your side. But living among them is only for any Australian who is deaf.
And to the north we have Papua New Guinea. This is our Mexican border region. It is just a short boat ride from the last Australian island in the Torres Strait to the PNG border. To the north of that country lies Fiji, Tonga, Western Soma and the other Melanesian islands. Now the people of these islands are like the Central Americans who try to get to the USA. They face poverty on a daily basis. The extra impetus to emigrate to Australia is climate change. Their homeland beach properties are disappearing during the high tides. Like the Central American poor, they have no long term future in their country.
We don’t have a Cuban like republic near us. The next best thing is East Timor. But there are few immigrants in Australia from this country.
No it looks like the Aussies who hate right wing governments, well they are stuck here for the duration. Looking to Europe and the UK will not get them out of this country. I once crossed from France to the UK. The third degree I got from the UK border control officer amused me. When I told him my profession was an economist, he sarcastically asked me what book I had published. I had to assure him that I was only staying in the UK for eight days. As if I would stay there forever. If the Kiwi accent is grating, the Pommie accent is nauseating.
No, you Aussie who hate right wing governments will just have to suck it up. There is no where else for you unless you are super rich.
John, with immense respect...
This is what your stakeholders reasonably expect?
You are as lousy at politics as you are brilliant at economics.
How about some welfare economics, say Arrows impossibility theorm etc. etc.
Just a thought, but folks of both good will and key decision roles count on you, more than you may realise.
Best wishes
Grantmusgrove01@gmail.com
What brought that on? The post was about migration. There were a couple of glancing references to Trump, but nothing resembling political analusus.
I knew one gay couple who moved from the US to Australia because George W Bush was elected in 2000. But they had already moved from New York to California (by car) after one of them was sacked for having a gay wedding.
Americans might be different than other citizens of the Anglosphere. But I'm not sure if this is true for the chattering classes.
"Chattering classes" is useless as a descriptive term, but helpful in signalling your own tribal affiliation. And since it can only be used by someone engaged in chatter, it's a bit self-defeating.