Extremely weird question. We live in a competitive global market, people can and will move countries for better opportunities.
USA used to just receive talent as it was way richer that any other country. That times are over now. I understand that it will take some time for Americans and many people in other for countries to accept this new reality, thou.
It was also (and arguably still is) way freer that any other country. In terms of freedom of religion, political, and economic freedoms. Its individualist culture is way more conducive to accepting differences, and being an immigrant nation from the start, making it your new home is much more natural.
One country is liberal and democratic, the other one currently keeps an ethnic minority in reeducation camps, due to cultural non-conformance. In one country the current leader's power to change things has been significantly limited, while 90% of the mass media has been downright scornful about him, and the judiciary refusing to do everything he wants, in the other the leader can cancel IPOs, put CEOs in prison for decades for disrespect.
I.e. your level of legal protection is not comparable between these two countries.
So we are indeed in a global competitive job market, but not all presumed competitors are actually competitive.
Among all developed countries I have visited and lived in America has always felt most like a police state to me. Cops are aggressive, overzealous and tend to show zero tolerance. In general anybody with some authority are kind of scary in the US. Just look at immigration in the US. You will be hard pressed to find immigration in other developed countries behaving in this manner.
What I notice most interacting with American at authorities are all the threats. Pretty much any document you sign elaborate quite a lot on the dire consequences of filling it out wrong.
And as one can see online and I have experience myself, the Us is a country in perpetual paranoia. Cops get called all the time for nothing. And they abide. There is not any issue small enough for them to not show up. And they are not nice. They act like police state police. You can look at videos online of police arrests and dealing with different situations. American police tend to escalate and be very brutal. Slamming people to the ground. Beating them up. Pointing guns and yelling. Handcuffing even small kids. A ridiculous practice seen from the perspective of other actually free countries.
No, the US is an embarrassment to liberal democracy. It makes the rest of us living in democracies look bad.
Find me a country with anything comparable to the First Amendment's current absolutist interpretation. In any other country you would find speech regulations and exceptions to constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech rights.
Cops are indeed more nervous in the US, but that is because the US is unique in the world with citizenry having a right to bear arms (and pretty serious arms at that, like easily concealable handguns or the .50 cal, automatic assault rifles if you are rich). Nowadays it's fashionable to underestimate the importance of that right, but armed citizenry is a very important factor, a deterrent in the minds of those who would dare to attempt to take the rights away. What is happening right now in Belarus likely wouldn't have happened if the citizenry had been armed, because using armed forces against your own people, starting a civil war, will look like a risky proposition even to a strongmen.
You are focusing on the behavior of the police, and there are indeed issues. Whatever cops do right now happens because American public lacks sufficient understanding of the issues, not because the country is an authoritarian police state. But the police behavior isn't the whole picture. There is also a legal system, the free press, and an uncensored internet access. While police may be rough, your chances of getting unfairly convicted are actually pretty low, provided you have money of course.
>other actually free countries.
I assume you are talking about western European countries with all kinds of limitations on speech and expression, and disarmed populace. To each their own, but I would not consider them freer than the US. And I'm saying that as someone who grew up in an authoritarian unfree country.
As you can see from nearby Poland, this just means that you have to get the armed rightwing section of the populace on board first.
I think the thing to learn from is Amartya Sen's "capability" model: how well does the theoretical freedom to do X and Y match up to the practical ability to achieve it? For many people, the lack of an economic safety net is a far more immediate and pressing problem than a theoretical government coup.
Copyright is draconian in the USA and has imposed its model worldwide. It has been used to silence even critics to religion organizations like Scientology.
USA has more freedom to express racist sentimens than other Western countries. And companies are allowed to use 'freedom of expression' with money to buy political favors, known as corruption in many other countries.
The USA has many positive things to offer, but also many flaws that did not fix while it was the dominant power.
Wake up. With a president actively trying to overturn election outcome? Attacking the very system that puts him in power 4 years ago? No, the world is watching, and they are not stupid.
He can try, but he won't succeed.
Some, if not all, of the legislatures of PA, MI, GA, and WI will be sending their own GOP electors.
Those electors arguably take precedence over electors chosen by other legal processes, like democratic votes, according to the US Constitution. Because this issue does not concern state laws (or fraud allegations) whatsoever, the matter will go directly to federal courts.
Looking past the smoke screen of poorly supported fraud allegations and popular reporting's misdirected focus on the obvious lack of merit of said allegations, last night's impromptu PA legislative hearing was a major turning point in this situation.
https://www.finaccord.com/Home/About-Us/Press-Releases/Globa...
Dictatorship aside, the problem with Chinese companies is the glass ceiling. It is pretty much impossible to make a career there as foreigner. Very much unlike the US and EU.
I am pretty sure, you have zero chance as foreigner to make great career in EU. Though EU is big and diverse. About USA I don’t know. First thing I see is a big problem with visa.
Its the same everywhere minority will always have a ceiling or a stop on their ambitions. And off course there will always be exceptions everywhere.
But now with the growth of Chinese companies, this becomes an 'adventure' not so different than accepting a job abroad, wherever that might be.
The USA offers higher quality of life and has a cosmopolitan, multicultural society. I live in the Netherlands, where I enjoy an extremely high quality of life, get access to diverse cultural programs, and get to meet interesting individuals from every corner of the earth who have come to pursue art, technology, and science here. Dutch tech salaries aren't the highest, but I'm living a great life. Dutch and American societies are open-minded and immigrant-oriented: both readily and easily assimilate millions of immigrants.
During uni, I did an exchange study in Beijing and Shanghai. I'm open to working a short gig in China, but I would never settle down there. Chinese cities have thin veneers of modernity and glitz, but they are polluted, offer poor quality of life, and—aside from small expat circles—are monocultural from a global viewpoint. I am thoroughly convinced that China lacks the West's ability to draw, retain, and assimilate foreign talent en masse.
I completely agree, that's why I emigrated to Sweden (not so different that the Netherlands) instead of the USA. But many people gives high value to money and high status.
> China lacks the West's ability to draw, retain, and assimilate foreign talent en masse
That is probably true for now. I have seen the USA loosing that appeal, China may gain it. Hong Kong is going to be a test bed on China capacity to keep foreigners in the country as the region is already diverse.
China lacked the money to be multicultural, people was not willing to move to a poor country. That may change and Western democracies need to stop thinking that are the best in the world and work more to improve education, health care, inequality reduction and quality of life if we do not want to be surpassed in the future.
If non-Chinese started moving to China in large numbers this would be a notable change, and the OP’s question makes sense.
“ In 2016, China issued 1,576 permanent residency cards. This was more than double what it had issued the previous year, but still roughly 750 times lower than the United States’ 1.2 million.[1]”
“ The only significant immigration to China has been by the Overseas Chinese, who in the years since 1949 have been offered various enticements to return to their homeland. Several million may have done so since 1949. The largest influx came in 1978–79, when about 160,000 to 250,000 ethnic Chinese refugees fled Vietnam for southern China, as relations between the two countries worsened. Many of these refugees were settled in state farms on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.”
PR is for immigration and China isn’t an immigrant country.
I agree however not a lot westerner immigrated China in masses. I don’t think you would live a normal life there without knowing Chinese, it will be painful. The immigration policy is mostly nonexisten, which by itself says a lot about the government's attitude towards foreigners in general.
On the other hand, China could be attractive place to gain experience with, it is vast complex and completely different from the West.
San Francisco is 34% foreign born, compared to 0.7% in Shanghai.
China is not really in the conversation when it comes to foreign talent yet. But that could change over time.