Issues of Economics and Ethics about Expats Moving from "Richer" Countries to "Poorer" Countries

[Cabradelmar]

It's neither immoral or unethical. A redicilous notion. Is it immoral or an Asian intellectual, scientist, entrepreneur to leave their own country to say earn more in say Europe? The pursuit of happiness is a human right. Frankly, as a US retiree I could live just as cheaply in certain (albeit less desirable - for me) areas of the US as I do in "urban" areas of THA. What is unethical is the dual pricing standard or gouging that takes place in certain high density expat locations. Gouging occurs in US as well. It's unethical. Do good and feel good. Be a good citizen of the earth and respect people and good things will come of it. I can not control other people but I can control myself. And I have nothing to apologize for for wanting to make my money last as long as I do. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Interesting thread and lots of open questions.

 

I remember a long time ago a medical doctor told me that things changed considerably in this world when more and more people used airplanes to travel. Before that time people traveled relative slowly from one area to another. If it was another country it was days or weeks to get there. And the travelers looked out of the windows, eat and slept in a place maybe a couple of hundred kilometers away from the last place, etc. Travelers slowly got used to new people and new situations. They had time to see how the locals behaved, etc.

Now people take a plane for a few hours and are abruptly in a totally different place. And then?

I think we all saw new arriving tourists who behaved like total idiots in many ways. And in some places many of those tourists arrive and change the place to something totally different. Venice is a prime example of that.

 

I think moving to a new place is fine. But we should acknowledge that we are the new "aliens". Do we want to be seen like aliens or do we want to be part of the people who live in that place? I think we should learn about the locals and local life. It does not mean we have to do everything exactly like the locals, but at least we should try not to upset too many of them at the same time. 

[luckyluke]

8 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

At work when I arrived in the morning my staff stood at attention and the department heads all reported

I seems, according to Google Image, the picture you added is something completely different. 

 

Or than I suppose you just used it as an example how it was, and you simply forget to mention it. 

 

[Classic Ray]

I moved here initially to get away from poor weather and expensive environments, I tried to retire in both the UK and France, but missed Asia too much. 

 

Luckily I fell in love in Thailand after a year or so and have a new family. I restarted work, and whilst my language skills are not great, I can survive. 

 

I still think of myself as a guest, and as a Brit constantly complain, but feel my presence is contributing to the wellbeing of several Thai people including my family and employees, tradesmen I employ and people who work in shops and restaurants I patronize. 

 

My tax benefits Thai people as a whole. I think being here is a general benefit both to Thailand and myself, rather than an exploitation, and I look forward to spending the rest of my life here.

[marcusarelus]

9 hours ago, Airalee said:

I’m sorry but this is pure BS.

 

Nowhere in the world at that time were low to middle class people making the equivalent of ฿100,000 per month.  (I assume you meant Baht and not USD).  Average annual household income in 1950 was $3,300.

 

My neighbors.  

[RocketDog]

On 6/14/2019 at 9:51 PM, swissie said:

It's more a question of how long this "Geographical-Arbitrage" will remain possible. As "western Countries" are hitting the ceiling as far as economic growth is concerned, so called 3rd world countries have much leeway on the upside. This future projection is already mirrored by looking at currency exchange rates.
- 10 years from now, (especially concerning S/E Asian countries), the "Geographical-Arbitrage" is likely to no more exist. (Globalization in full action.)
The only places left for "Geographical-Arbitrage", 10 years from now, may be Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Honduras and Guatemala.
- Long term Farangs relying on monthly (fixed) pensions in form of "rock solid hard western currencies" will find their Retirement-Plans greatly disrupted, especially in S/E Asia.
(We all know some UK-Expats that have experienced "negative currency developpements". With dreamy eyes they tell the tale of when the exchange rate was 70:1).

The same to be repeated with other "rock solid hard western currencies". Just a matter of time.

I find, that next to the dazzeling smile of a Thai-Lady, the above should be part of any retirement-planning in connection with future "Geographical-Arbitrage". Always in mind, that the benefits (the opportunities) of "Geographical-Arbitrage" are getting slimmer by the passage of time. At least as long as the concept of "Globalization" remains unchallenged.
- At some time in the future the expression "We are not in Kansas anymore" may well take another profound meaning:

"Why did we ever leave Kansas in the first place?"

In conclusion: While the "Geographical-Arbitrage" is still worthwhile and attractve: Enjoy while it lasts! After that, it's back to Kansas.
Cheers.

Your primary point is well taken.

 

Any asset class other than precious metals and real estate is fair game for rape and pillage via financial predation gimmicks and repressive legislation by any one country.

 

The takeaway?

Saving cash is a losing battle.

Diversify your assets.

Don't keep all your assets in one country.

 

When the financial reset comes your goal is not to remain financially undamaged ; that's a futile hope.

Your goal is to not be financially destroyed.

 

 

[Jingthing]

I'm gonna kick this up a notch or two now!

Fasten your seatbelts. 

 

As I assumed (and I agree) engaging in "geographical arbitrage" per se is not perceived by most people as immoral or unethical. 

 

But's let's get into some specific possibly more controversial examples within that context. 

 

Some nations offer economic INCENTIVES for foreign residents. For example for a retirement residence visa they might offer discounts on restaurant meals, airline tickets, public transportation fares, taxation breaks on importing goods and cars, etc.

 

So naturally people being freely offered such incentives will often take those incentives. 

 

Suppose you're moving to a nation with an average income of 1,000 USD a month and your income is 5,000 USD per month and you have assets of a million USD.

 

Say you take those incentives too which you obviously don't need. Who's paying for those incentives? It depends but on things like restaurant meals, often local nationals. 

 

Or perhaps your income is only 1,000 USD month and you also probably take those incentives.

 

Is either case (you're rich or you're closer to a local wealth level) immoral or unethical?

 

In my view, not really. The nation made the offer without means testing and you accepted the offer. Why not take it?

 

Some others may feel differently.

 

Another example.

 

Some nations (believe it or not but it's true) offer the OPTION for foreign residents to buy into their nationalized health care systems. Usually there are other options to buy additional private insurance or even to just pay retail, but typically private insurance has restrictions based on age and health conditions (so in effect you may not be able to buy the non public coverage at all).

 

So you move to a nation that offers their national health plan buy in option for foreigners and you take it. 

 

As another member posted about on another forum, the local people have been paying into that system all their lives. You show up and just start paying. Clearly that's a generous offer by those nations. But in cases where they DO freely make the offer, is accepting the offer immoral or unethical?

 

Of course I don't think that it is. You've living abroad, you're trying to take care of yourself, the other nation perhaps being unusually "moral" and "ethical" realizes that legal foreign residents are humans too and may need health care services and may not have other ways to get it (either no access to private insurance or not wealthy enough to cover catastrophic retail pay events). So they offer freely, and you accept it.

 

I don't think accepting that by paying into their system is "immoral" or "unethical" in any way. Of course it's a political decision of those countries that offer it to offer it or not. Some of their nationals may resent that offer and they are free to change their laws at any time to kick out foreign residents from that system. 

 

But I can see these examples are another level and that some people may see accepting these offers as not being fair to the local people.

 

So there you have it. Feel welcome to comment of course or perhaps add some other examples of where some people might feel the foreigners are taking "unfair" advantage.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[BritManToo]

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

As I assumed (and I agree) engaging in "geographical arbitrage" per se is not perceived by most people as immoral or unethical. 

I thought we all came to buy sex from younger, cheaper partners.

I have no interest in discounted restaurant bills or health care.

Edited June 16, 2019 by BritManToo

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I thought we all came to buy sex from younger, cheaper partners.

I have no interest in discounted restaurant bills or health care.

You thought wrong. 

[Jingthing]

I want to make it clear that the concept of go where you're treated best is not AT ALL about people bowing to you because you have more money than they do.

 

It's about practical GOVERNMENT POLICY things like --

 

Strong buying power with the currency you're importing, if applicable

Ease of visas

Options for permanent residence that are not too hard, and don't take too long.

Options for citizenship that are not too hard, and don't take too long.

Favorable taxation policies compared to your home country or other expat choices

Ease of starting and maintaining business

Attractive options to obtain health care coverage including for the aged and unwell

Explicit discounts for consumer items for expats (quite rare but Panama does that)

Explicit initial expatriation financial breaks such as tax free import of cars and household goods

 

 

I would argue that THAILAND does not rate AT ALL highly on such criteria, and the recent trend has been in the wrong direction as far as Go Where You're Treated Best.

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[Airalee]

59 minutes ago, Benroon said:

What the ????

 

Why don't you tell your 'servants' (I cringed when I read that bit) that there is no need to bow for you ? Or does that give you a warm feeling of superiority I thought was left behind decades ago. When you're hungry do you call the 'servants' in from the plantations to make your dinner ?

 

I hate it when I get all that bowing stuff - its outdated and embarrassing (for me at least)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m guessing none of it is true.  He picks a couple of the largest mansions in Grosse Pointe (Henry Ford and Art Van) but doesn’t bother showing the aerial view where those mansions are surrounded by quite modest homes.

 

 

[Airalee]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'm gonna kick this up a notch or two now!

Fasten your seatbelts. 

 

As I assumed (and I agree) engaging in "geographical arbitrage" per se is not perceived by most people as immoral or unethical. 

 

But's let's get into some specific possibly more controversial examples within that context. 

 

Some nations offer economic INCENTIVES for foreign residents. For example for a retirement residence visa they might offer discounts on restaurant meals, airline tickets, public transportation fares, taxation breaks on importing goods and cars, etc.

 

So naturally people being freely offered such incentives will often take those incentives. 

 

Suppose you're moving to a nation with an average income of 1,000 USD a month and your income is 5,000 USD per month and you have assets of a million USD.

 

Say you take those incentives too which you obviously don't need. Who's paying for those incentives? It depends but on things like restaurant meals, often local nationals. 

 

Or perhaps your income is only 1,000 USD month and you also probably take those incentives.

 

Is either case (you're rich or you're closer to a local wealth level) immoral or unethical?

 

In my view, not really. The nation made the offer without means testing and you accepted the offer. Why not take it?

 

Some others may feel differently.

 

Another example.

 

Some nations (believe it or not but it's true) offer the OPTION for foreign residents to buy into their nationalized health care systems. Usually there are other options to buy additional private insurance or even to just pay retail, but typically private insurance has restrictions based on age and health conditions (so in effect you may not be able to buy the non public coverage at all).

 

So you move to a nation that offers their national health plan buy in option for foreigners and you take it. 

 

As another member posted about on another forum, the local people have been paying into that system all their lives. You show up and just start paying. Clearly that's a generous offer by those nations. But in cases where they DO freely make the offer, is accepting the offer immoral or unethical?

 

Of course I don't think that it is. You've living abroad, you're trying to take care of yourself, the other nation perhaps being unusually "moral" and "ethical" realizes that legal foreign residents are humans too and may need health care services and may not have other ways to get it (either no access to private insurance or not wealthy enough to cover catastrophic retail pay events). So they offer freely, and you accept it.

 

I don't think accepting that by paying into their system is "immoral" or "unethical" in any way. Of course it's a political decision of those countries that offer it to offer it or not. Some of their nationals may resent that offer and they are free to change their laws at any time to kick out foreign residents from that system. 

 

But I can see these examples are another level and that some people may see accepting these offers as not being fair to the local people.

 

So there you have it. Feel welcome to comment of course or perhaps add some other examples of where some people might feel the foreigners are taking "unfair" advantage.

I was the one on the other thread that doesn’t use the govt. hospitals.  It’s just a personal thing for me.  Not so much ethical.  I certainly wouldn’t judge any expat for availing themselves of what is offered up.  I would encourage someone to use it if works for them.  In fact, I abhor people who judge others through their own personal ethical or moral standards.  Too much of that already with religion, special interest groups etc etc

[Golden Triangle]

22 hours ago, Airalee said:

I’m sorry but this is pure BS.

 

Nowhere in the world at that time were low to middle class people making the equivalent of ฿100,000 per month.  (I assume you meant Baht and not USD).  Average annual household income in 1950 was $3,300.

 

To put costs into perspective, I was born in Manhattan in ‘68.  My dad had purchased his 2100sf coop at 322 Central Park West (I don’t even mind sharing the address) in 1966 or 67 for $28,000

 

Extrapolate from that what you will.

 

And wrt boarding schools...

 

I attended one of the “eight schools” so I know what I’m talking about.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Schools_Association

 

And for JT...Interesting topic.  I moved to Thailand for peace of mind #1 and cost of healthcare #2.  I think people who use geographical/economic arbitrage for the purposes of production using cheap labor to then export back to their home countries are the unethical ones.

 

I do my best to not buy things made with any slave labor.  My electronics (stereo) are all made in either England, Norway and Canada.

 

I even try to buy all my clothing made without “cheap labor”

 

https://www.cityboxers.com/

https://www.buckmason.com/

I suppose we really ought to start calling him Walter, not sure I can believe another word from him to be honest, I just noticed on another thread that Wally reckons his 'Wife' spends or plans the spend of millions of smarties.

[swissie]

On 6/15/2019 at 11:47 AM, wwest5829 said:

And it appears that some countries are trying to exact a penalty for retirees being priced out of their own country.

Interesting point.
Undoubtedly, a large number of Expats that are taking advantage of "Geographical-Arbitrage" are the ones that have been "priced out of their own countries".
Assuming that at some point, Geographical-Arbitrage is no more financially attractive and potential Expats will HAVE to stay in their home countries, due to the lack of alternatives. Then what?
= Millions of more "Bedsit" elderly folks in their home-countries. Will Western-States subsidise them? Hardly, even knowing that those folks have basically been "priced out of their home-countries".

As long as "Neo-Liberalism" seems to be the new Credo of the Western-World, I fear that "soup-kitchens" will be considered adequate to relive the plight of the newly emerging "old poor folks".
- So, as long as "Geographical-Arbitrage" makes financial sense and enables a less wealthy Farang a life in decency (as opposed to a "bedsit-situation" back home), I can find nothing wrong with the concept, as even Thai's realise that a $ spent in Thailand, helps them more than a $ spent in some "home-country".
Overall, for those concerned, enjoy "Geographical-Arbitrage" as long as possible. Once gone, it may well be "back to Kansas" and "brother, can you spare a dime".

[simon43]

Some nations (believe it or not but it's true) offer the OPTION for foreign residents to buy into their nationalized health care systems.

 

As I mentioned in a separate thread about retiring to Europe, the tiny country of Andorra doesn't make this an option for foreigners - it is compulsory.  Regardless of your citizenship, whether Andorran or 'foreigner', regardless of your age, whether with pre-existing medical conditions or not, whether in sickness or in health, every working adult pays exactly the same amount into the social welfare system.  At 65 years old, you can choose to opt out if you wish.

[spidermike007]

Absolute, hypocritical hogwash. These kinds of moronic utterances, have nothing to do with reality. It is usually perpetrated by people who have rarely left their own countries, and know little about the world. These same people would experience tremendous shame, at seeing people who are poor, and would cry about how unfair the world is. Nobody ever said the world was a fair place to live. Some are simply less fortunate than others. Many of us on this forum, have been blessed with good fortune in this life, and to take advantage of that, by moving to a nation that is less expensive, has a far higher quality of life than what we experienced back home, friendlier women who know how to manifest the dignity within femininity, and nicer people, is smart and visionary, in my opinion.

 

I think in life, we have to learn to ignore nonsense, ignorance, and stupidity. It means less than zero to me. I live my life, treat people fairly, behave with honor, and respect, and take care of my own. One has to be able to take satisfaction in a life well lived, and just ignore the noise. 

[BritManToo]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:17 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Travelers slowly got used to new people and new situations. They had time to see how the locals behaved, etc.

Nobody used ships then?

[BritManToo]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:17 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

I think we should learn about the locals and local life.

I had no interest in the locals while living in the UK, I have no interest in the locals where I am now.

Actually, I do have some interest in interacting with the locals 20 year old daughters.

[OneMoreFarang]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nobody used ships then?

And how long did and do these trips with ships take?

I am pretty sure you can still take a trip on a ship from i.e. the UK to Thailand. But that ship will stop at many places on the way to Thailand. And I guess it takes weeks.

[OneMoreFarang]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I had no interest in the locals while living in the UK, I have no interest in the locals where I am now.

Actually, I do have some interest in interacting with the locals 20 year old daughters.

I understand that the most important part for you are the daughters. Fair enough.

But I am sure you also interact with people who live in your building or nearby buildings, restaurant and bar staff, taxi drivers, and and and.

I would be surprised if you ignore all those "other" people completely. I wouldn't say I know people well around me. But I say hello to a couple of them. Ask them about their life, etc. Just being friendly with the neighbors.

[BritManToo]

55 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And how long did and do these trips with ships take?

I am pretty sure you can still take a trip on a ship from i.e. the UK to Thailand. But that ship will stop at many places on the way to Thailand. And I guess it takes weeks.

How about the ship from Plymouth to America?

How many stops does it make for you to adapt to the cultural change?

[Jingthing]

Here's an example of Americans needing to temporarily travel abroad because of the prices being too high in the home country. Yes, the target country is Canada which is not a poor country but I think this niche example illustrates the larger issue.

These insulin travelers are facing ethical issues too. The Canadian pricing was intended for Canadians. Although it used to be legal (I used to do it) to have Canadian meds shipped to the U.S., it is now illegal. 

But survival supersedes such concerns, doesn't it?

 

Take housing for example.

How much is it for a tiny tiny unit in a moderate sized city with access to public transport in the U.S.? Surely the demand is massively bigger than the supply. Not even remotely close to meeting it.

Thus so many Americans are homeless or living with strangers in overcrowded group housing, often at risk for eviction for doing so.

Go to a poorer country like Thailand and you can get a month of very basic small housing in a moderate sized city with transport for how little? 3,000 baht a month?

Now of course very few expats could only afford that but it does illustrate how some of the "richer" countries are totally failing as societies to meet basic human SURVIVAL needs for large percentages of their populations.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-price-of-insulin-soars-americans-caravan-to-canada-for-lifesaving-medicine/2019/06/14/0a272fb6-8217-11e9-9a67-a687ca99fb3d_story.html

Quote

As price of insulin soars, Americans caravan to Canada for lifesaving medicine

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

On 6/14/2019 at 12:19 PM, Jingthing said:

Is it "immoral" or "unethical" for expats from richer countries to move to poorer countries to "take advantage" of the perceived (not always real) lower cost of living?

 

I'm not arguing that it is. I don't think it is. But the question has been brought up on this forum so I thought it was worth exploring. 

 

A related issue is what happens to the local culture when there is a glut of such people trying to exercise geographical arbitrage. Talking here about expectations of tipping, inflated rents, inflated housing sales prices to foreigners, being seen as not much more than a Walking ATM kind of thing.

I don't believe there's anything immoral or unethical about legal human migration.  It's just a natural part of free market capitalism that's exercised throughout the world.  There will be abuse and exploitation occurring, but not on a grand scale.  Having said that, each individual government is responsible for protecting its citizens while also accommodating foreigners.  Ironically, there are Thai laws that many foreigners have complained about, such as work permits and foreign ownership of land, that was created to protect its citizens.  The latter in particular has helped to prevent Thailand from going the way of San Francisco, as you pointed out.

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I don't believe there's anything immoral or unethical about legal human migration.  It's just a natural part of free market capitalism that's exercised throughout the world.  There will be abuse and exploitation occurring, but not on a grand scale.  Having said that, each individual government is responsible for protecting its citizens while also accommodating foreigners.  Ironically, there are Thai laws that many foreigners have complained about, such as work permits and foreign ownership of land, that was created to protect its citizens.  The latter in particular has helped to prevent Thailand from going the way of San Francisco, as you pointed out.

Foreign ownership of San Francisco? You mean all those filthy rich tech people from Silicon Valley?

A better example I think is Vancouver, Canada.

[Berkshire]

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Foreign ownership of San Francisco? You mean all those filthy rich tech people from Silicon Valley?

A better example I think is Vancouver, Canada.

San Francisco is a different situation but same result (probably).  I'm not familiar with Vancouver, but if the Chinese have caused real estate prices to skyrocket, then you're right, a better example.   

[Airalee]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Foreign ownership of San Francisco? You mean all those filthy rich tech people from Silicon Valley?

A better example I think is Vancouver, Canada.

Wasn’t Vancouver given the nickname “Hongcouver” a number of years back?

[Cryingdick]

It really depends on the person I guess. In general I say go where ever is best for you. However when you open threads crying about income inequality back home and then move abroad specifically to take advantage of that  you might be a tad hypocritical. 

 

So those that are revolting against the injustice back home while bottom fishing for the next country they can get the most out of might consider why some people would say it is ironic. If you feel all people should have the same that principle should follow you.

 

 

[Jingthing]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 2:53 PM, Airalee said:

Wasn’t Vancouver given the nickname “Hongcouver” a number of years back?

It would be a good fit.  

[Jingthing]

 

Some issues around POLITICS were brought up by another unnamed member, and I would like to give my opinions in response to those items, even though they were clearly intended to be provocative, there is something in it perhaps worth responding to.

 

The absurd idea that there is something especially wrong with a person that has been critical of their own nation's economic system somehow being more morally suspect in moving abroad than others.

 

I have noticed over the years (speaking about Americans) that some Americans move in reaction to their feeling that the U.S. has become too left wing, some move in reaction to their feeling that the U.S. has become too right wrong, and some expatriate for primarily personal reasons having nothing to do with that. (My initial expatriation was the latter.)

 

Thus we can sometimes see the political divisions of home countries reflected in expatriation communities. There has actually been a lot written about that phenom among the overly examined American expats in Cuenca Ecuador. These divisions are real and I think if home country politics motivate some people to expatriation, if they think that's a valid reason for them, I'm not going to question their right to feel that way.

 

The issue of opposing economic inequality in the home country was addressed as if there is something at all wrong with that POV. An inflammatory and completely false insinuation using a silly world "revolting" that opposition to extreme economic inequality in your home country means you think that "everyone" should have exactly the same thing (in other words perhaps pure theoretical communism)  was mentioned. That's ridiculous red baiting. Opposing extremes of economic inequality and wanting things like access to health care for all is not the same thing as thinking that there isn't a place for rich people and poor people in relative terms, and that people shouldn't be allowed to buy expensive houses and cars if they can afford them. Such idiocy of labelling anyone critical of their home country to be communists must be rejected out of hand.

 

Now as far as "bottom feeding" -- what is that about? It that similar to calling some countries "s-hole" countries? I don't get it. People of all political flavors and economic levels looking into expatriation are going to look at the economic situation in the target country. If they're on a small fixed income, their expatriation choices are going to rather limited to those countries that will legally accept their lower financial level that are also affordable at lower levels. Visa requirements and actual cost of living are not the same thing! Wealthy people might be attracted to relatively poorer countries for economic reasons as well. Some anyway. For example a  somewhat wealthy person can retire to Australia and live perhaps an upper middle class life. Or they could choose a place in a poorer country and live like a very wealthy person. Their choice. Why would this be demonized regardless?

 

Then we can consider the political situation and economic inequality in the target nations. This may be even more interesting to consider from an expat's POV. Expats in general are not moving to become political activists in their target nation. There are all kinds of injustices in every nation on the planet, and yet the specific situation of each country is different. Mentioning Ecuador again, ironically many politically right wing Americans moving to "escape" left wing USA (in the past) moved to left wing Ecuador. Since then the Ecuador government has shifted right.

 

I'm mentioning all this because in my opinion for the MOST part the government of the target nation is NOT the very highest priority for expats. Whether it's right wing or left wing (and it can always change) is not the typical priority. The typical priority is a desired perception of some kind of STABLITY, in safety, in currency, in reasonably workable infrastructure. etc. So indeed it's not uncommon and indeed very normal for people to expatriate to countries that have governments in power that they don't agree with. That's a matter for the citizens there, yes? 

 

Now for people that progress to citizenship in a new county, well, then that does become their business. But most expats never do that.

 

Now there are extremes of course. Governments with policies so harsh that some foreigners don't want to live there and contribute any of their hard currency to. But I think that's rare. Expatriation to China (mostly for working) seems to be quite popular. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Jingthing

[Pharoticus]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I have noticed over the years (speaking about Americans) that some Americans move in reaction to their feeling that the U.S. has become too left wing, some move in reaction to their feeling that the U.S. has become too right wrong ...

 

RE: right wrong

 

Ha! Did you do that on purpose?