Pompeo tells Congress Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China
axios.com
axios.com
As a 40 year old software eng manager, where should I go? My top choice at the moment is London as my wife has British citizenship and several of my wife's friends are in Europe; I also have access to the E-3 visa so the US is also an option.
You'll probably get out of one trouble into another.
That said, I'm open to other options; for example, I really liked Berlin as a tourist, but need to research more on what it's like to actually live there.
I personally like plenty about the culture shown (hard work, raising kids in alternative education outdoors, strong sense of community, their obsession with efficiency but liberal vacation time/work benefits), but I could see it turning some people off. Also of note they went to Nuremberg and he took a job at a pencil factory, which may be more traditional Germany than you'd experience in Berlin or other urban areas.
Denmark/Norway/Iceland/Sweden should also be on your radar also Netherlands/Belgium.
What can you call a "normal country" these days?
A dozen some names will come up, but would there be any which aren't "retirement communes" for the rich like Canada? Not many of them have the same vibe, and dynamism. Quite a lot do actually stagnate.
Specific tech hot spots are Vancouver/Waterloo/Toronto/Montreal. The weather and healthcare are things you need to get used to, but gorgeous environment with friendly, diverse, and well educated population.
Levels.fyi shows a much higher median of 130k USD for the whole country, but is also based on many FAANG jobs -- https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/Canada/
Canadian salaries are pretty awful, and it’s not uncommon to see job listings looking for a sr eng with 8 years of exp and offering like 90-110k.
Outliers exist, but even for top tier companies Canadian compensation is gonna be lower.
Not a bad place if you’ve got persistent health issues or maybe if you want to raise a family, but other than that it’s pretty shitty IMO. I’m personally going to try my hardest to move down south as soon as this corona stuff starts settling down.
I don't get out much but it doesn't seem likely to me that internal civil strife will actually break out in widespread violence. Who would fight whom, and to what end? A lot of us are mad at each other, sure, but we don't really want to shoot each other. South Park did a whole episode on it.
Are you still so sure about the idea of internal civil strife being "unsubstantiated fear mongering"?
And by the way, race-based civil conflict is only a small part of the structural problems I'm worried about. There are multiple deeper, more dangerous threats on the horizon.
For example, are you sure that Trump will peacefully vacate the office if he loses the election? If not, what exactly do you think will happen then?
Finally, not that this matters a whole lot to me, but to provide you with "substantiation" that you may accept, many mainstream media outlets have covered this in detail in the past year or two. Here are just a couple, Google keywords such as "US civil war 2" (just "civil war" turns up Avengers stuff) and "boogaloo" for more mainstream media coverage:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-america-talk-turn...
https://www.macleans.ca/society/america-is-deeply-divided-an...
A military coup? Having worked in a 3-star general's headquarters for years......absolutely not.
I honestly haven't followed most of the domestic US insanity since COVID-19 descended on the world. I checked in with family members "Have you cleaned your firearms? Buy some more ammo. Do you still have MREs? Double your bottled water supply too." and then tuned out a bit after the news everyday was basically "more people die in NYC".
And before you say: oh, they're different from us, remember that Sarajevo was a modern city that hosted the winter Olympics 8 years before brutal war broke out. Most of its citizens thought the idea of war happening was absolutely preposterous, until it wasn't.
How about the WA state senator exposed as a member of a militia group which wants to overthrow the government? Or the protesters who hung an effigy of the KY governor in his front lawn last week? There are dozens of groups like this which want to kill. You are being willfully blind to it because you don’t want to believe it.
Y'know, for years I heard this same basic story about everywhere in Europe too, IE: the money is no good. As I age though... money really isn't everything... if you can make enough to pay your bills and have a quality life, I'd take that over the rat race of the US. When the kids are raised here, my partner and I aren't likely to stick around, so I am watching this thread with great interest as well. And hoping all of you fleeing places of persecution make it safely to better places.
Some quick math and random internet sources, and moving from Vancouver to Silicon Valley would net me about a 40% haircut just on the increased cost of living.
I currently pay taxes on par with California. (Just looking at state/provincial+federal. No FICA/CPP/etc.)
Locally, we have offices for Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Hootsuite, Slack, Salesforce, Disney, Samsung, SAP, Sony, Oracle, MasterCard, Activision, Capcom, etc, etc. Lots of options.
Looking at some average salaries in Silicon Valley, it'd pretty much be a wash on the increased pay versus the increased expenses. And I have no doubt if I dig around I can tip that more in my favour. For instance, I visited an emergency room once this year and my wife had a difficult delivery when our daughter was born. I'm currently down about $100 on an ambulance ride, parking at the women & children's hospital, and coffee while I was living at the hospital. I have no doubt that could have easily eaten up the difference even with insurance.
And I certainly wouldn't put the quality of life in Canada as worse than the US.
Just be aware, the data is supposed to be in USD, but some people may still be reporting CAD.
If you're at a top tech company you're doing better relative to non tech than in the US.
If you're left of center politically it's also way less stressful in Canada compared to US.
Given the upheaval, instant support network and an inalienable right to enter and stay in the UK, I agree wholeheartedly with your top choice. It's just safer until you can circle the wagons and plan the next move.
I am personally biased against London and I believe it is a vastly overrated bubble, and I much prefer small cities and large towns. Rural areas can also be, unexpectedly, much easier places to make friendships if you are ok with picking up volunteering, and would be much more comfortable and picturesque than London.
I'm assuming at your age you're not doing late-night entertainment frequently - in that case you can live a fairly long way out of London and still make good use of it. You can be 50 minutes from London Bridge and live surrounded by green fields.
For the longer term, Australian state capital cities are probably the most liveable locations in the world. There is little demand for apartments, so small-space urban living is comparatively affordable.
What truly matters is the lack of stress from the truly adversarial environment that London's commute represents. (Though, having been to HK also, I guess London is actually not too different, in terms of what stereotypical, huge cities are like.)
London is London - the only city that can hold a candle to it is New York and having spent time in the latter I prefer London. ;) Basically it has anything you want shopping , hobby, entertainment, food whatever within 1h on public transport. Accommodation is expensive but it’s actually cheaper compared to HK. Current virus shutdown notwithstanding, there’s plenty of IT work here. We live in SE (Zone 4) and it’s nice and leafy area and we can still be in the centre in less than 30 mins.
Canada is quite a different way of life - more relaxed but a bit boring IMO (my opinion might well change as I get older). Toronto is OK - the city is too American looking for my liking but I didn’t spend much time there to really know it. Traffic is a big problem. Large Chinese community there - around Markham where we go is practically all Chinese. The food is excellent - much better Chinese food and seafood than London. Very clean and pleasant neighbourhood. Everything is really spread out though - outside the city going somewhere is at least 20min drive. Going somewhere else in Canada is a serious journey - it is a huge country with lots of empty space in between. Trains and flights are expensive.
EDIT Saw this in a Reddit thread by /u/CleverNameTheSecond
HK was one of the few ways China can evade US sanctions as HK is considered an autonomous entity for trading purposes. If HK is considered not autonomous the US can levy the same sanctions as they do on mainland China. They probably don't want this in the grand scheme of things.
China took full advantage of this, and the US is probably betting that revoking this special status hurts China more than it hurts the US.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Hong_Kon...
No, continuing Hong Kong’s preferential status whilst the Party siphons off information, tech, interest, etc. is.
> China is trying to undermine it's automony, now US is staying they are the same?
Pompeo’s assertion is an indication China is no longer “trying”, but has succeeded.
> Isn't this giving China what it wants?
The “what” you refer to has already been taken by China. US acceptance of that reality serves the US by signaling it is time to contain losses.
On the other hand, they didn't have enough leverage to change things when they signed the Joint Declaration, and the people who signed it are no longer in power. So maybe they'll just act like it's no change, because they knew it all along.
INAN but according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration...
> Those basic policies will be stipulated in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the PRC by the National People's Congress and will remain unchanged for 50 years.
The Chinese introduced a security bill via People's Congress. It isn't exactly a violation?
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-opinion-will-tokyo-t...
https://hk.usconsulate.gov/our-relationship/official-reports...
It's unclear why there's a gap from 2007-14 though.
Was that office just not staffed for that period?
>In 1993 and annually from 1995 through 2007, the Department of State submitted reports to Congress, pursuant to the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended (the Act). This report responds to the requirement in the House explanatory report 113-499 accompanying H.R. 5013, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, FY2015. The following highlights key developments since June 2007."[1]
[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eap/rls/reports/2015/240585.ht...
I am working in one of the HK startup so am eager to learn what do you guys think
Morale already took a big hit in the last year during the protests, and it was clearly noticeable, both in the workplace and in the city. Everything felt a bit more grim. Conversations were always skewed towards discussing politics, and it such a noticeable divide in society, those conversations often end in arguments. There's many stories of people losing friends, and families splitting up over this.
I think it will take some time to see the real effects, if people will start emigrating away or if companies will choose to move their HQs. But the outlook is definitely fairly grim at the moment.
Additionally, I don’t understand why the US is trying to antagonize China. It’s important to be tough on trade, but we should keep our geopolitical rivals very close. All this move does is punish HK and (possibly) anger China. Truthfully they probably don’t care, it’s a blip on the radar.
London would be the last place on my UK list.
Vancouver (and Australia) received the bulk of Hong Kong immigrants because, during the handover exodus, the US imposed extraordinary hurdles on immigrants from there.
This turned out to be a really, really stupid thing to do. The Hong Kong chinese are essentially the ideal immigrant: extremely industrious, very well educated, highly motivated to integrate their children, possessing unusually strong international business and finance ties, strongly law-abiding and highly family oriented, and a great many speak flawless English. So... Canada got them.
HongKongers are a unique breed. We would be wise to not repeat our past mistake.
Add to that the Canadian dollar's likely continued weak performance and you can make significantly more in the US if you're at the top of your field.
The difference in GDP per capita, even adjusted for PPP, is significant and quite durable: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locat...
I personally don't see how that gap doesn't become wider over time, because our economic policies favour oligopolies over robust competition in many sectors, and we've been actively sabotaging any attempt to develop our bountiful natural resources.
Parent poster likely isn't referring to the economic outlook.
Why? I certainly like our position in the world far better than where canada is. Apparently so do canadians as millions of them immigrate to the US where hardly any americans immigrate north. Wonder why?
> So... Canada got them.
And they got hongcouver - something they whine about all over social media.
> HongKongers are a unique breed. We would be wise to not repeat our past mistake.
If they are so special why did they get conquered by the british? Why did they stay conquered for 150 years. And why did they need china to finally give them "democracy" after the brits left. If they are so special, let them stay in hong kong and figure things out themselves.
In a world where the US has extremely high unemployment, you are advocating that we allow more people from china? No thanks. I'm feeling generous, let canada and australia have them all and get all the benefits.
Like they did in South Africa they just packed their bags when it became expedient to do so and buggered off without worrying about the consequences.
At a certain point and time, Hong Kongers should be given political asylum, but the standards should also apply to mainland and Tibetan residents.
From an American policy or geopolitical perspective, Hong Kong as an island is meaningless. Its people are its capital.
> the standards should also apply to mainland and Tibetan residents
Perfect is the enemy of good.
You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Strategically speaking, yes. Nobody is landing troops or planes on Hong Kong. And China's ability to project military power onto it is unconstrained, today, by non-diplomatic factors.
Between leaving the population in place in hopes it makes Beijing's life more difficult, and offering them relief, the advantage--to the people and outsiders--seems heavily one sided.
> You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Most Americans would be pissed if anyone grabbed any sliver of American territory. That doesn't make every inch of American territory high ground.
It's economically meaningful. But from a foreign policy or geopolitical perspective, strategically, it's not worth expending force over.
> having a tiny outpost of liberalism as a check on the worst impulses of the mainland
I'd prefer this too. But Beijing has made its intentions clear. Short of the U.S. deploying force to defend Britain's 1997 agreement, Hong Kong--as it exists today--has fallen.
A Chinese invasion of HK would make a great setting for the next "Fallen" movie, if only Hollywood wasn't so busy sucking up to the CCP.
You are not going to win against CCP in this scenario. They have bigger army diplomacy AND they don't have rule of law.
Continue protesting, but figure away out, and Get out!
By staying, you are helping the CCP. You work, spend, and play in HK, you are giving the CCP money and power to continue doing this to you. By leaving, you take value out of the equation.
When people leave en masse. You can then form groups and communities elsewhere. Tell people of your plight, teach your kids the lessons you learned, and take on the CCP from a better position.
Hong Kong is lost.
But its people can still be saved.
With that attitude it certainly is. Maybe if we had the balls to sanction China for its myriad of human rights violations, or you know do what we have 0 problems doing in the middle east, provide arms and training to resisting movement (but I guess we only have to balls to do that when the country poses no real military threat to us).
https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/will-vietnam-lease-cam-ranh-...
We've been levying tariffs against China in a carrot and stick approach for the last 3 years. We're basically extorting the rest of our NATO allies to block Huawei hardware from being used for 5G implementation. The US is currently trying to get their CFO extradited from Canada to stand trial for bank fraud. We continue to support Taiwan militarily, with arms sales and joint training opportunities and have been since the Cold War (the first one, that is). Looks like we're actually giving them Main Battle Tanks now for the first time ever, if this wikipedia page is to be believed.[1]
I hear you, that I'd like a harder stance taken on China as well - but that probably means going after US companies that do business there. I'm fine with this, but it's a much harder pill to swallow for many. Otherwise your only option is overt military intervention in Hong Kong. And that doesn't seem worth it for Americans.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
HK was bound to be lost eventually (in 2047), the acceleration is what makes the situation worse.
Not that I don't support freer immigration; I just think exodus is kind of the worst case scenario.
Was that the goal here? Was Pompeo's testimony in any doubt, almost without regard to Hong Kong's situation?
If I remember correctly, the HSBC building was actually designed so that much of it could be dismantled and removed from HK if the CCP handover did not go well. The only thing that would remain would be the large cantilevered pilons supporting all the removable floors.
And you're probably right. Hong Kong's status made it home to a lot of the financial engineering of commerce between China and the west. With it losing its status, I think a lot of the financial machinery in HK is about to come undone. Singapore will likely benefit, to some degree, from this move. The world and China may need to find new markets and suppliers in the short term.
[0] All states with any influence in the matter, China and Hong Kong SAR
The comparisons to cold war seem apt and given that US president was recently asked about what he talked about with Putin ( and the response, among others, was borders ). That sent a chill down my spine. How was this question not followed up is beyond me.
We have been moving towards a confrontation for a while now and this move will not make it less likely. I am not trying to defend China's moves, but realistically, what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign?
It takes two tango. Is Iran and/or China doing anything on their part to move us closer to war?
edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate
As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous.
I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so.
So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.
It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
>So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.
Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire.
>You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia.
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.
Absolutely the same could be said about Saudi Arabia.
Yes storming the USA embassy was wrong, but so was Flying two Airplanes into towers (i think you know very well ho founded Al-Qaida), and the whole Yemen-War is nothing, right?
I did not even started with the hole Nuclear-Contract that the US broke up, just to bring Iran (again) in a unbearable position.
It's funny, when the US makes mistakes then it's just 'run by humans, and humans make mistakes', but when Iran does it, then it's 'began existence by breaking global norms'
We can pursue this conversation once we agree on that simple truth.
This HK takeover by China is significant and the social media taunting that China is doing is not exactly peaceful: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?re...
edit: added not. gotta slow down
To be honest, China really sees itself as a world power. This is only because of the economic affluence it had on every country on Earth. Military wise, they do spend a lot of money but the equipment and training are not quite on par with the top dogs in the game. CCP also has no regards for its people so worst case is to sacrifice a few million population in case of an international conflict.
The problem with China is like a professional boxer fighting on a street with thugs. Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves, they are not gonna abide any rules, nor do they have anything to lose.
Hear hear, the US just pay some privately-own'd armys for the 'dirty' stuff, to stay with your analogy, they just pay another thug that was probably a professional boxer in his former life ;)
China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more.
I also find the third sentence a very simplistic way of understanding international relations. I do not want to go on a rant here, but US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy.
The problem for US is that China is not easily bullied. That is the reason the considerations are being rolled back.
The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...
In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.
Of course it's political. The same way Beijing's national security law, and through it, repudiation of its 1997 agreement, are political decisions. Political decisions have real consequences. One of the consequences of that national security legislation is Hong Kong no longer has an independent justice system.
This notice mainly reverts Hong Kong to the same trade status as the rest of China. It was given special status, decades ago, because it was special. It's clearly no longer special in those ways.
In the wake of Beijing's violence in 2018, the consequences of a loss of autonomy were strengthened to include sanctions. That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.
So do you agree that the current events are more than just special consideration being rolled back? It clearly is not a simple if then kind of deal as your original post appeared to imply.
>Of course it's political.
We are in agreement.
> That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.
This is where we may be not in agreement. Could you elaborate on the trade part?
If an American does business with China, there is one set of rules. If they do business with Hong Kong, there is another. The latter is more favourable than the former. This notice principally rolls back that delineation.
The special status was granted for commercial reasons. China and Hong Kong had different legal systems, and different commercial and policy risks. They merited different treatment.
Now, they’re less different. A business dispute in Hong Kong could end up in a Chinese court because a party functionary feels like it. A company exporting from Hong Kong may be coerced by Party officials, or be benefiting from IP stolen from the mainland. This happened, slowly, over years. But the national security legislation took a big, sudden step.
The special status was granted to protect commercial interests. It is being rescinded on commercial reasoning. Those commercial interests are exercised politically, and there are other factors at play, but that’s sort of like quibbling about whether one’s arm or brain lifts a teacup.
There is a difference though. For example, with Vietnam, the press was largely careful not ruffle administration's feathers. With Iraq, there was some mild questioning, but few of the established media questioned the narrative pushed by the administration. Now look at the response of the press to even a possibility of another full out war in ME ( at best divided along partisan lines ). That was one of the few times, I actually agreed with Tucker.
The change you are thinking of is that the war of Iran did not happen yet ( and it likely would have based on the publicly available information [1],[2]). If left to Washington alone, I am willing to bet good money, it would have happened already.
[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administratio...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-deman...