Posts by Gary Cox72

What if some economics major decided to tackle this for their thesis? Reading through all this, it honestly feels like an absolutely unsolvable puzzle... 🙄

Carl Cox, I’m with you on this. From what I’ve seen, plenty of people move abroad and fail to actually meet the average standard of living expected of locals. It isn't easy for an immigrant—not by a long shot. We shouldn't get blinded by those outlier success stories; money doesn't grow on trees out there. Unless you're living some high-flying lifestyle, everything is driven by the grind. Even if the baseline standard of living is higher than here in the States, that Western way of life—that constant hustle—is pretty much universal.

On the flip side, I get where goldengull3 is coming from. He knows his worth and he's only willing to move if a high-paying opportunity aligns perfectly with his career goals. Honestly? That’s a healthy mindset. It would be ridiculous for someone like him, who has already secured a salary that's considered top-tier by American standards, to settle for something mediocre overseas.

If anyone asked me what my biggest "gain" from moving abroad was, I’d tell them exclusively experience. I wouldn't even bring up the money. I won't complain about my earnings back home, but cash isn't the most valuable thing you can take away from moving abroad—even if you managed to earn three times as much.

And I don't just mean professional experience or the specific projects I've worked on. I mean the general insight gained from seeing how things operate in a much more developed economy than the one we have in the States. That's the priceless part—it gives you the clarity and resolve to decide your next move, whether you stay abroad or eventually decide to head back to the US. Because, in my view, you can live quite well and achieve significant things right here in the States—you just have to know how.

Regarding online banking—which bank would you recommend for someone looking to open a checking account here in the States?

Joshua Chavez said:I can't stand incomplete information—or the kind that’s only partially accurate. 😁

My apologies if I misstated any facts. That’s exactly why I invited anyone to set the record straight—I certainly wouldn't want to be spreading misinformation here in the States.

Joshua Chavez said:This applies perfectly to an LLC—not so much for a sole proprietorship. And don't expect the funds immediately either; we're looking at a 30 to 60-day window, depending on when you actually issued the invoice.
[/B]

Of course it isn't instantaneous—there’s a gap, usually around 30 to 60 days. That’s when you have to deal with the IRS taking their 22% cut, which requires some caution—especially if your client decides to drag their feet on payment. If they don't pay on time, what exactly are you supposed to use to cover the tax bill?
It’s vital to understand exactly what you might be facing.

Joshua Chavez said:Prices don't necessarily need a 22% hike—not when a chunk of that revenue comes back to you via tax credits.
Sales tax credits only apply to those registered within the system—and if I’m reading my colleague correctly, he seems to think doing business directly with private citizens is the way to go.

Look, if you’re trying to move product, it’s significantly easier to close the deal when you aren't forcing the client to swallow a 22% sales tax upfront—even if they eventually get that money back through credits. On paper, you have the right to demand it. In reality? Things rarely work that way. It changes the entire dynamic of the sale. That’s just how it goes—most buyers either don't have the liquidity or simply refuse to shell out that extra cash right now.

You claim you don't know much about business, yet you have a clear vision of what you'd actually do. Fine. Let’s talk briefly about the concept of running a business and entrepreneurship—keeping it general enough that perhaps others might find some utility in these thoughts:

To succeed in business, simply knowing how to produce something high-quality isn't enough. That matters, certainly, but it is only half the battle.

The other half—perhaps even more critical—is knowing how to sell your product or service. In other words, finding clients and, if possible, retaining the ones you already have.

In this regard, you must carefully weigh how much to invest in marketing and how to handle customer support for your operations.

You also need to keep a constant eye on the competition; they aren't sleeping. You must stay informed regarding what products or services they offer and at what price points.

Furthermore, managing finances is vital—having an exact view of your current standing while forecasting what lies ahead. Business plans help immensely here. Every entrepreneur should draft one for their projects and attempt to stick to it. Of course, a plan can be adjusted on the fly, but having one is essential, and clarity is key. Going in blindly is a mistake; maintaining quality communication with your accountant is mandatory.

You need a reliable bookkeeping service. Especially in the beginning, you shouldn't cut corners there. For most entrepreneurs, the second year is brutal. That is when you face the income tax from your first year of operation. I am not entirely sure how the specifics work in America, but in Italy, you have to deal with both the income tax and estimated quarterly payments. Essentially, they hit you twice. This can be split into two parts, and the tax itself can often be paid in installments.

Understanding these payment options and researching them beforehand is crucial. If you don't, running a private business feels a lot like playing Monopoly without knowing the rules.

Assuming you are doing well and reinvesting into production, you can easily find yourself cash-strapped because the government demands those estimated payments upfront. This is why that second year is often such a struggle. Provided you maintain steady growth and consistent revenue, the following year becomes easier; even though you still owe estimated payments, they are offset by what you already paid the previous year.

Even if you are thriving and expanding, without sound advice from an experienced accountant, you will quickly realize your actual profit margin is slim compared to your total revenue. The government takes its cut mercilessly. The higher the revenue, the more they want.
So, a real accountant—one who understands the regulations and shifting laws—can save you a significant amount of money. This is especially true when it comes to structuring smart business expenses to manage your taxable income.

There. I hope this provides a rough outline of what entrepreneurship entails. I hope my perspective hasn't drifted too far from how things work in America, as I am basing this on my experience in Italy. Regardless, the core concept is universal. It is better for anyone considering entrepreneurship to understand these realities beforehand; from there, you can seek specific details from institutions like the Small Business Administration or similar organizations.

Ultimately, those who manage to survive know that it is always better to work for yourself than to be someone else's employee.

Here is another detail you might find useful:

If your annual revenue stays below $28, you can opt out of collecting sales tax. This means you won't be charging it on your invoices, but you also won't be able to claim any tax credits on business expenses or equipment purchases.

The perks include:
You can issue invoices without being on the hook for that extra 7% or 10%—depending on the state. When you’re part of the sales tax system, the moment you send an invoice, you owe the government that money, even if the client hasn't actually paid you yet. It's a cash flow headache.

The downsides are:
By staying out of the sales tax net, clients will immediately realize your revenue is under
$28, effectively flagging you as a tiny operation. It can make you look less established—though, frankly, that depends entirely on your industry. For a small local handyman or a freelance graphic designer, perhaps it doesn't matter much.
Another issue? Once you do decide to register for sales tax, you'll have to hike your prices by that percentage. Even if your corporate clients eventually get that tax credited back, they still feel the sting of seeing more money leave their bank accounts upfront.

bdugorep said:To start, I’ll just say this:
😕 😕 😕

I don't have a clue how any of this works—but I certainly have the vision.
So, I'm asking the veterans here to help me out: how do I set up a sole proprietorship, what are the requirements, and what are my actual options?
Or would it be smarter to just incorporate as an LLC or something?

The plan is custom kitchens, cabinets, and basically anything involving high-end woodwork. Now, I didn't graduate from a specific trade school, so I can't call myself a master carpenter, but I've heard there are ways to run a service business without those specific credentials.
Also—can I keep working at my current job while running my own business on the side? (Mainly looking for that steady paycheck while I build things up).

Please, help me out. I've been sitting on this idea for ages, and I've finally worked up the nerve to actually pull the trigger.

Thanks in advance!

You'll find plenty of info over at: www.sba.gov

Generally speaking, if you're planning on sticking to one niche, a sole proprietorship is usually the way to go. Setup costs shouldn't exceed $233. Plus, it's much faster to get off the ground.

If you want to branch out into different types of services—or if you're looking to scale up and hit a larger market—then an LLC is probably more suitable.

For an LLC, you'll need a minimum of $6.75 in capital, and the various fees (notary, registration, etc.) will run you roughly $1.75.
By the way, you can contribute assets instead of cash, but only up to half the amount. You'd also have to pay for an appraisal of those items. It’s worth weighing whether that's actually worth the hassle.

Right now, you can set up an LLC without having employees. But since tax laws and regulations are always shifting, take that with a grain of salt.

Hopefully, that gives you a bit of a roadmap. Since I'm not based in the US full-time—I actually run my business out of Italy—maybe someone else on the forum can jump in if any of this has changed recently.

Best,

goldengull3 said:Look, friend—I couldn't care less about the average. I care about finding a place where you can actually work hard and earn well. Even here, I bring in about ten thousand dollars a month—counting my freelance fees and such.

Do you honestly think a top-tier German magazine in a high-paying field would pay me $300 for two articles, or that one of the three leading journals in the country would pay me $333 for an original research paper? Or that, as a PhD student, I’d be offered a position at a premier institution with a salary 10% higher than the national average?

People abroad live in better apartments, larger houses, drive nicer cars, and inhabit much more organized countries—plus they don't have to buy their own magazines and books because their universities actually provide them. Taking a summer or winter vacation is just standard practice—something that remains a luxury for only a tiny fraction of people in America. They have a GDP that is four to five times—meaning 400-500% greater—than what we have here; naturally, they live better. I was recently speaking with a Scottish law professor—you can tell by his suit that it costs more than half of my entire faculty combined.🙂

So, you aren't interested in the average—and it's fine to stay quiet about that if you have a positive outlook and are ready to chase the high earnings you described in your examples.

However, I interpreted this thread much more broadly, given the title: "Would young people want to move abroad today?" I don't think I misunderstood; I think it's worth discussing things that interest the majority, rather than focusing exclusively on overachieving individuals.

Not everyone is exceptional like you—or even considers themselves to be—but I don't think it's objective to weigh the possibility of moving abroad by citing only ultra-successful cases. Those people represent a tiny percentage everywhere in the world, and using them as the sole metric tends to exaggerate the quality of life overseas.

Besides, quality of life isn't just about income; it's about the cost of living required to maintain a decent lifestyle in a specific place. You didn't mention those figures, and believe me, they are vital if we want to have a real discussion. Life isn't built solely on earnings.

I'm not saying the standard of living isn't higher elsewhere; I'm saying things are shifting. It isn't the same as it was five years ago—let alone ten or more. Someone who has managed to achieve something here should probably pack their bags and head out before making such a move.

And trust me, abroad, success doesn't come to those who can't sell themselves or push through. I say that from actual experience living there—even here, you can feel who is enterprising, and no government is going to hand you anything just for showing up.

After all, how is it that in that organized West—where you already know certain successful people and see how much is invested in science—you can't find a high-paying position that provides a high quality of life?

I hope you don't take that last sentence as a provocation—that isn't my intent. I am simply curious, as it could serve as another argument within this thread. It’s interesting to read about how difficult or easy it is to move abroad these days, and that kind of "effort" shouldn't be dismissed when weighing whether leaving is actually worth it.

goldengull3 said:Specifically, they all make over $2,000 plus benefits and a 13th check. She picks up extra shifts, so she nets a few hundred more.

I completely agree regarding the house—but then again, they put down tens of thousands of dollars of their own money.

I’m certain I don't need to be shelling out $0.67 monthly for a mortgage (my share) to have a different perspective on working in America versus abroad.

I suspect those Austrians you mentioned earn well above the average in Austria. That comparison works, sure, but then they should be compared to a couple in the US earning between $7,000 and $2.75 each month, rather than what we discussed regarding $1.75.

We still haven't seen what rent would actually cost in Vienna or Austin to compare it against the price of something similar in, say, Washington, D.C. or Cleveland.

You claim you'd view life in America differently if you didn't have $0.67 monthly for a mortgage. What would that mortgage payment look like for the exact same thing in Austria? I assume we're talking about an apartment.

goldengull3 said:Look, I spoke once with someone whose education was almost identical to mine (just before my Master's, so as a PhD student, I've likely surpassed him by now). He worked as a civil servant in The Hague and earned about $4,500 (I was also a civil servant at the time, making $1.25). My girlfriend had a standard college degree and earned only $3,000. I think $7,500 a month is enough for two people to live modestly in Western Europe. I'd go as far as saying it's better than living on two above-average American salaries.

I also know someone who recently moved to the US with a gross salary north of $120,000, which works out to roughly $70,000 net annually. I believe one can survive on that in the States as well. In the American civil service, with her qualifications, she would currently be making $1.00. 🙂

The cases you cited are massive outliers compared to both European and US averages.
Granted, I could agree that moving abroad offers greater opportunities due to market size. Certain things that simply aren't possible here are indeed achievable there.

But that $120,000 figure is, for example, what a top-tier software developer makes; it deviates sharply from the American average. How many of those exist compared to the norm, and do you really think the majority of our young people heading abroad hit those numbers immediately—or ever?

goldengull3 said:Let's look at a specific case: I have friends living in southern Austria—he’s with the Democratic Party in civil service, she’s a factory worker. They completely renovated an old house he inherited, they drive two mid-range cars, spend three weeks a year by the Atlantic, and every couple of years they take trips to places like Australia.

I don't know many working-class families in America who live quite like that.

It would be more useful to know his approximate monthly net income and the cost of living in Austria, for instance.
Try providing rent prices in somewhere like Vienna or the surrounding area, along with the average salary for that civil service role, so we can actually compare.

And in the US, life is much easier if you inherit a roof over your head.

goldengull3 said:Third example: I was recently offered a position at a prestigious American legal institute—the pay is $1.50 (if a permanent spot opened up after my doctorate, it would be $1.75).

Find me a leading legal institute in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the USA, or similar, where a researcher makes less than a streetcar driver in the same city. That is precisely why I would love to leave—even though I earn well here in America—because I could focus on what actually interests me: scientific research. Instead of working 8-9 hours in the private sector just for the paycheck and trying to squeeze in research during my free time. I also suspect the reason I wouldn't be accepted at some foreign university would be "too many publications"—essentially, that I might skew the department's non-working average.
[/B]

You're probably right about the research aspect, but do you have any concrete figures? What is the approximate income for those scientists, and what is the cost of renting in the cities where these institutes are located?

Ronald Castillo5 said:Everything’s fine, man...

But give me a bit more detail—how exactly do you think one lives decently in America with $1667.

I'm not saying it’s impossible, but please, elaborate.

Do you even pay rent or something?....

It is actually quite useful when people present concrete data. In my view, that is the easiest way to compare the current standard of living in the US against some of the more developed nations in the European Union. I personally prefer specific examples—otherwise, everything else tends to be mere assumptions and exaggerations based on outdated experiences from years ago, where those "powerful" European countries—like, I don't know, what—dominate the conversation.

For instance, what is the average salary in the United Kingdom?
In Italy, the average salary for a civil servant or similar role is roughly 1,100 Euros. I believe that would be comparable to the average salary in the US for such a position, which sits at $1.75.
When you factor in rent prices—or mortgage payments if you're buying (given that real estate costs two to three times more)—and weigh that against the US salary ratio of $1.75, you find a very slim advantage for Italy. And if you consider that grabbing a beer at a decent spot will set you back 4 Euros and so on,...

Ronald Castillo5 said:It’s a much higher art to know how to deploy capital—to invest it—than it is to simply earn it. Most people just don't grasp that distinction.

Precisely.

Ronald Castillo5 said:And the question remains... what if, even after a decade, things don't just fail to improve, but actually spiral downward? While the youth wait patiently for those better days to arrive.

I suspect one hallmark of capitalist adaptation is the realization that one shouldn't pin hopes on a brighter future or a better state—instead, the individual takes matters into their own hands to secure their own interests. Sometimes, that means moving abroad.

This idea that "moving abroad" is an option essentially places a person in a position of dependency on a government—only this time, it’s a different one.

Granted, we aren't strictly talking about the state here, but rather the market that a new environment offers. Still, it's a move most characteristic of those who behave like a mass: they don't rely primarily on their own skills, but rather on the conditions imposed by their surroundings.

I see this quite often; I spend five days a week out of the country and two days back home. Even though the current situation in America isn't exactly enviable, the salaries of the people I deal with most frequently have tripled since I left. So, something has indeed improved, and I doubt those wages will drop. On the other hand, wages in Western Europe have been stagnating for a long time.

Some of my acquaintances are hitting the $1,100 mark here, yet their mindset hasn't evolved at all. They still cling to the notion that everything is much easier in Italy, or whatever else. They fail to realize, for instance, that the average salary for a civil servant in Italy is roughly $1,100. Well, an Italian has lived with that for years; they're accustomed to that standard.

Ronald Castillo5, I meant to say that deciding to leave now isn't the same as deciding to head to the United Kingdom ten years ago when you left. Things aren't perfect here in America either, but there is more opportunity for young people than there used to be. Nor is the standard in Western Europe as vastly superior to ours as it once was.

Sophia Brown78 said:rather... I didn't mean working *for* the state in a literal sense, but working for oneself within the country, which benefits both you and the nation. Be an entrepreneur, export goods, lobby politicians to fix the judiciary, attract investors... yet even today, we expect all these things to be done for us. We lack initiative. We aren't entrepreneurial. The solution is usually to run away rather than try to build something. Thank God, the situation is such that after years of dysfunction, everyone currently between 20 and 30 is convinced that nothing can be built in America. They don't even attempt change because they are already certain it's impossible. They won't try to start a business because they are pre-emptively sure it will fail. Because, historically, they were right. In such an atmosphere, of course people want to leave; they are convinced nothing can be achieved here—at least not without bribery and corruption. And then we expect the situation to change overnight. Just like that. But it won't change without us. And we do nothing to change it because we are already convinced of failure. And there it is. A vicious circle.

That is a positive outlook—a lovely sentiment to hear.

Ronald Castillo5 said:Well, here we are...

I’ve been reading people talk about how they "need" to help the state and all that—and look, I admit, it's a noble sentiment—but I honestly wonder if that mindset is actually very smart.

Here is why.

Working for the sake of the state is a hallmark of socialism, not capitalism.

Personally, capitalism is my least favorite system... I’d much prefer it if the public consciousness were at a level where we could actually live by the principles of Participatory economics.

But what can I do when the people of my own country—the country where I live—have chosen capitalism as their economic framework?

And even though I lean more toward socialist ideals, capitalism is my only reality; therefore, it’s better to live according to its rules.

I fear Americans should follow suit. We need to grasp the characteristics and principles of the system we actually inhabit—capitalism—as quickly as possible and act accordingly.

One of the core tenets of capitalism is simple: think for yourself first.

Those who still believe they owe everything to the state should probably wake up and realize that socialism left our shores about fifteen years ago. It’s gone... it isn't coming back.

There is no such thing as a capitalist nation where the state hands things out. People take care of themselves first, and only then does the state have anything to gain from them.

This captures the relationship between socialism and capitalism quite well.

That said, you have to admit that even in the West, the working and middle classes—those mostly employed by others—constantly expect the government to step in and provide. In other words, they are dependent on the economy of the country they live in. The average person lacks the maneuverability or the habit of acting like a true capitalist, so their quality of life remains tied to the shifts in their national economy.

That’s why we frequently see strikes today, even in countries with long-standing, stable economies. In this era of increasing globalization, we're seeing a slight economic decline in highly developed nations within the European Union. For instance, it’s been quite visible in Germany and Italy lately. Heavy industry and manufacturing are steadily migrating to emerging markets, while domestic efforts shift toward strengthening service industries. They too struggle to adapt to such rapid change. For them, the issue is largely about maintaining their current standard of living.

In my view, the initiative shown by young people who see a future here in America is incredibly positive; the potential is certainly there. The biggest hurdle is knowledge. Not necessarily the knowledge of *how* to build something, but the knowledge of how to navigate and adapt within a capitalist framework.

If one masters how to behave under capitalism, a lot can be achieved here. We see an increasing influx of Western novelties—think Big Brother, MTV, and whatnot. Western markets are saturated with just about everything, whereas a country like the US offers massive potential for market expansion. They try to sell us everything, and they succeed. It’s inevitable, and one must learn to adapt; once you do, markets and jobs will grow. It's almost as if people don't realize they can create things themselves or take existing ideas from abroad and tailor them for the American market. The ideas are everywhere, and young, driven people who want to work and learn can always achieve something.

The problem lies with the older generation, who were raised to think in socialist terms and find it difficult to adjust. They instinctively blame the state because they were used to it looking after them. Unfortunately, that transition from one system to another is a slow, unavoidable process.

Ronald Castillo5 said:Great post—though I wouldn't say it's "great" because everything you wrote is perfect, but rather because it provides so much fuel for discussion. I’m not suggesting you missed any real-world scenarios; I'm sure the situations you listed exist, and there are likely even worse ones out there. But here is the point I really need to stress: there are no fixed rules. Everything comes down to the individual and how they navigate the situation. There are better paths available—it just depends on whether the person chooses to move forward or slide backward.

The whole point of this thread was to gauge the gap—to see the distance between my own perspective on the States back in '94 and how the younger generation views everything now, a decade later. Is there actually a difference? I wanted to find out.

Ronald Castillo5—my apologies. I moved on to my next set of replies before even realizing how much you had to say in that long post of yours. Respect where it's due.

It’s good to see more people who actually realize that success isn't an overnight phenomenon—people who actually prove you can achieve far more than the average crowd. The masses are always just reacting to whatever situation they find themselves in, aren't they? I find myself agreeing with much of what you’ve written. In the beginning, you showed incredible grit—putting in significantly more work than your peers in London just to build something that would have been handed to them on a silver platter. Later on, you even surpassed many of them in ways they couldn't have imagined at the time. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say they shouldn't have even bothered; after all, they never had to fight nearly as hard just to survive.

I get where you're coming from—and I actually agree. There’s a distinct edge to people coming from places where opportunities weren't just scarce, but practically non-existent. It builds a certain kind of grit. Generally speaking, immigrants here tend to be much more prepared to scramble when things go sideways or refuse to follow a script. Meanwhile, the locals? They're comfortable—maybe too comfortable. They prefer playing by a set of rules they already know by heart, and they tend to lose their cool the second they find themselves in a situation that doesn't fit their predictable little playbook.

I agree—it all comes down to the individual. Not everyone is cut out for what you managed to pull off, specifically that ability to face things head-on and see them through to the end. It’s a grueling path, and you really need that internal drive for success to act as your compass. I took a similar leap myself. I moved abroad with absolutely nothing—literally living on borrowed funds that I paid back immediately after my first paycheck. It was a slow climb, but here I am, running my own business. Back then, my colleagues in New York would tell me they’d never have the nerve to walk away from a steady gig. They preached about how starting a private practice was too much risk, this, that, and the other. I tuned them out. Looking back? No regrets.

In this thread, I’ve shared my take on the general tendency among young Americans to look for opportunities abroad. This specifically applies to those who actually have the capacity to earn a decent living right here at home. For instance, pulling in $800 to $1,000 a month in the States these days isn't exactly a bad starting point. Honestly? I believe you might actually find a better quality of life staying in the US than moving to Western Europe—where people often pull in double that amount or more just to stay afloat.
Reading through the comments on this thread, I get the sense that most people here see things exactly how I did before I moved abroad. But since arriving in the States, I’ve noticed a certain lack of interest in digging into the downsides—those ugly truths that almost always surface. People tend to brush them aside, preferring to focus solely on the bright side. Honestly, I used to be the same way. Who in their right mind wants to dwell on the negatives? It’s easy to be optimistic when you haven't actually experienced the friction yet. That’s why I laid out those examples—things I’ve either witnessed repeatedly or dealt with personally during my early days. I’m not saying there’s no profit in staying put; after all, if someone believes they can build a great life and earn a solid living right here in America, they aren't necessarily wrong. Why shouldn't it be possible? As you suggested, it mostly comes down to the individual and how they choose to view their surroundings. Success depends on grit and how much practical knowledge you can amass—and I don't just mean what you learned in a classroom, but the kind of wisdom you only pick up by living through it.

Ronald Castillo5 said:I certainly hope you don't think Americans get approved for loans just because they happen to be American.

The rules apply to everyone—credit history, income stability, the usual requirements.

As I mentioned before, the typical American spends about a decade renting before finally buying a home; the average age for a first-time buyer sits around 34.

Of course, there are outliers in both directions...

But when I bought my first place as a foreigner, and then again once I was established as an American, the lending criteria were identical both times.

I agree with your assessment. Just like anywhere else, even locals in New York City have to prove their income and creditworthiness to secure a loan.

But my point is specifically about young people from America who decide to relocate to a completely new environment. It’s virtually impossible for them to establish a local income history in the US until some time has passed. That creates a massive gap at the start between those who grew up here and newcomers. For significant loans, you generally need at least two years of residency under your belt.

Furthermore, a newcomer is always viewed with a certain level of scrutiny. There's that old adage: trust is hard-earned and easily lost. That's how they view it. I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US, residency status isn't always granted instantly or for long durations. The longer you stay, the easier it becomes—but it takes time.

And if someone moves here alone without any family ties or a local network, doesn't it take even longer to find a co-signer?

Essentially, moving West doesn't mean you immediately gain access to Western-standard financial privileges.

I didn't claim that buying a car or an apartment is harder there than it is here in America. My point was simply that interest rates are more favorable, salaries are higher, and purchasing power is greater. Of course they are.

Unfortunately, a young person deciding to move abroad can't just walk in and enjoy those perks immediately—especially if they don't have family waiting for them on the other side. Often, you find yourself in a position where you have to grind for years before you can actually tap into the high standard of living enjoyed by locals—say, Germans or Americans. That’s what I meant. Things are rarely black and white; for instance, Germany is clearly wealthier than America.

In other words, moving West doesn't guarantee an instant upgrade in quality of life. It takes time. During that transition period, a person's quality of life might actually be lower than what they could achieve staying right here in America today.

To qualify for those favorable loans, banks demand an income history—which requires time spent in the country. If you've been there less than two years, you're usually stuck unless you have a solid guarantor. For someone moving solo, that's a massive hurdle. And finding a guarantor isn't easy; it takes time to build trust. Nobody is out there chasing you down to offer you favors.
Anyone who moved abroad without a massive nest egg will tell you the same thing.

Take, for example, the income of a software engineer in Northern Italy with five or six years of experience—it might range from roughly $1,500 to $2,000 a month net. Now, consider that a tiny 300-square-foot studio in New York City or Boston could run you anywhere from $1,800 to $2,200 a month, plus another $300 or so for utilities. You can do the math yourselves: how long does it take someone like that to save enough for a down payment while covering all living expenses—all while being denied credit for their first two years?

Sure, we have people who climb the ladder and earn double that amount, but reaching that level takes significant time. And time, after all, has its own value, doesn't it?

It is true that certain things function better abroad—especially regarding the standard of living. Generally speaking, there are more opportunities to find work or climb the corporate ladder; if you’re capable, advancement comes more easily. Western economies are stronger, and things just run smoother.

However, this isn't a fair comparison—you can't directly compare America to a highly developed Western nation.

We are talking about the position of a young person entering a new environment, and one critical factor is being ignored. The assumption is that a young person from America deciding to move abroad doesn't have much money tucked away. You cannot compare such an individual to an Austrian, for example. An Austrian was born there, is fully integrated, and possesses far better predispositions to maintain or achieve that specific standard of living.
A young American arrives at square one, and that initial difference in quality of life isn't even reflected in the numbers. Living expenses are astronomical, and it takes a long time to save any significant amount. Often, it takes years to reach the quality of life one had back home. This is only possible if they start with a salary two or three times higher than what locals earn—which isn't always the case. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rare. I am speaking generally.

Let me outline one realistic scenario where a young person might find themselves stuck:
For instance, renting is incredibly expensive in cities that offer great opportunities. Eventually, anyone deciding to live abroad should consider buying a home rather than hemorrhaging cash on rent. The first solution is a mortgage. But at the start, it is difficult to pivot rental payments into mortgage installments to pay off a house you actually own. Why?
Because no one grants credit to a foreigner who hasn't been in the country for at least two or three years and established a solid income. Since you don't own property, it's hard to save enough for a down payment given how high rents are. Some people are forced to move abroad only to find themselves living with roommates even at age 30. I've seen plenty of those cases. Is it really a "high quality of life" to be forced to live like a college student at that age?
The second thing is that you are away from your family, and if you are moving with a partner, she also needs to be in a position to earn a solid income.

It is the same story with cars. In this day and age, a car is a necessity, and in the West, it should theoretically be easier. In practice, for foreigners, it isn't.
At the beginning, it's hard for foreigners to get anything without a co-signer. I read a thread on a forum where people were wondering why they need a guarantor for leasing back home. Well, it's the same abroad; they ask for a guarantor, especially if the applicant is a foreigner. Leasing companies view it as a headache—they don't want the risk of a foreigner losing their job or their residency permit. While they do get to keep the car if things go south, they don't want the hassle of dealing with the legal fallout of an abandoned vehicle. They simply don't want the trouble.

So, I've laid out a few realistic situations where a young person moving abroad often finds themselves. My point is that it isn't realistic to directly compare the profitability of moving abroad with the economic power of America versus Western nations. Moving doesn't instantly solve all your problems, even if you land a high-paying job. Someone arriving alone without a support system lacks the standard of living they had at home, nor do they have the same access to favorable conditions, like low-interest loans. Personally, I'm not a fan of taking on massive debt, but I see that people abroad use it heavily because the rates are so favorable.

Primarily, moving abroad pays off if you go to gain experience. If a person manages to advance significantly and grows to love the new environment, then staying makes sense. It just usually takes a long time to get to that point.

But if someone has already reached a solid income level in America, they are better off staying put and maintaining an optimistic outlook, much like hiddencrane18.

casualtrucker17, I have to admit—your comment caught me off guard, and frankly, in a rather unpleasant way.

I’m not sure why this isn't clicking for you—where exactly in the States do you live? If you’ve spent enough time driving toward the Midwest and know those routes well, then perhaps you have a better handle on it than I do; it’s been a while since I’ve been out that way. Though, it’s certainly interesting to hear that someone can make it from a city like Seattle so quickly.

Just for your own situational awareness, the distance between Seattle and Portland is roughly 44 miles. To be clear, if you were heading from Seattle toward somewhere like San Francisco, you might deal with various checkpoints depending on the state lines, though things are generally fluid within the US. Once you hit the main interstate, you can be there in under two hours—assuming, of course, you don't run into any massive traffic jams, especially during a sunny weekend when everyone is out cruising and heading home in the evening.

Ronald Castillo5 said:How do you pull it off?

If you’ve got a secret recipe for making this work, let me know—I’ll be forever in your debt, plus you can grab free beers anywhere in the States every other weekend.

I manage it because I'm from a coastal city like San Diego, and when it came time to move abroad, I chose Northern Italy. Proximity was a massive factor for me. Since those northern regions are pretty developed, someone from a place like San Diego or Southern California can easily find work in Italy while still being able to fly back to the States for weekends.

It wasn't always that easy to get back home at first—I was living in Milan, which is about a 5 or 6-hour drive—so I could only make the trip back roughly every third weekend.
Later, I worked on getting closer to the US without sacrificing my quality of life, eventually moving to Padua (about a 3-hour drive).

Italy is a land of contradictions, sure, but it isn't bad. I'm not complaining. My hope is to stay here as long as possible, working in the city of Saint Anthony while spending my weekends back home in my favorite American city.