There are other periods of time that have been as good or better with a different political platform. In the 1950s (when America was “great”) the top tax rate was 90%.
Federal politics and the economy are linked, but not 1:1 and the net impact of changes to federal law often isn’t felt for years or decades (if at all).
50s was an anomaly with a 36% growth rate, like you said, because we were all that were left. The economy currently is very stable, diversified, and fast growing still for its size, some 70 years later.
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease...
I keep seeing these overly optimistic GDP growth numbers, but I can't find them.
Instead, since the 1970s, US thought leaders and business leaders of both parties long pursued similar trade policies that embraced deregulation and open markets, which allowed similar gains to be realized by US businesses operating in a globalized world (e.g. outsourcing, offshoring, integrated supply chains).
SV companies pay generously because dozens of companies flush with cash are all competing for the same pool of veterans of other companies. Any company that has less profit per employee (most small businesses) can scarcely afford to pay a premium for rank-and-file employees with domain experience; nor is there enough effortless mobility in specialty skilled manufacturing roles to make such escalating wages necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
it would appear US is in similar leagues with Canada, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, etc, of having close to 0-1% in poverty. Check out the other countries in Asia or Africa if you really think America has it bad.
Something's clearly misaligned with the definition of poverty between your sources; you're differing by an order of magnitude
edit: strong lang.
I think you got the wrong information here.
You can get an EB1 (greencard in 3 months if you qualify.
You can get an O/L/E visa in a few months same thing with H1b.
And you have way more ways to get in.
Also you need to make the proper comparison with EU not just cherry pick a few countries. I can cherry pick countries to where it's very hard (try Denmark for instance).
My claim was EU vs US again 11 million illegal immigrants living here and for a large part contributing to the economy that alone would never happen in the EU.
And you don't need 1Million for a EB1. It's a merrit based greencard (just like O1 visa is)
You can also work in any state the second you are in the US.
Not to discount your experience, i am sure you've been through a lot of paperwork (i know i sure have, and i'm yet to meet someone who enjoys immigration departments!) but the US is pretty damn tough if you are not a) wealthy and/or b) highly educated and in demand.
Not at all. I know a couple that tried to move to Canada after Trump got elected but were shocked to find out they'd have to deposit 250k USD with the Canadian government for 5 years in order to be considered for permanantly residency.
Not only that, the demand for people to move into the US is tremendous so the competition is obviously very steep compared to less desireable places.
edited: strong lang.
If you look at the figures for net migration per 1000 inhabitants[1], the USA and Germany are pretty much the same for the period between 2007 and 2012: 15.94 per 1K and 15.54 per 1K respectively. For 2017, the USA sits at 3.9 (Canada 5.70).
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...
Sort by Net Migration Per 1,000 Inhabitants Australia 45.01 Canada 33.84 US 15.94