Expats are moving to Portugal
latimes.com
latimes.com
It seems shortsighted to move to tiny coastal city in Europe that you can probably see in a weekend visit, where you rarely get to express yourself in your own language, spending years constantly frustrating and annoying people when speaking their language, having no cultural attachment, possibly destroying your career, and the sinking feeling that you may never see most of your friends and family again let alone that exciting spontaneous visit.
I thought it was because you could get a place on the beach at a considerably lower price than California but the city mentioned, Cascais, seems similarly priced. The lower crime rate is a compelling reason to move but still seems insufficient.
I think it's a magnet for this stuff because it's cheaper than the rest of Europe and the government has openly marketed itself to this kind of thing (to the detriment of the citizens, who are being priced out of housing and a lot of whom are leaving for other countries.)
Dear, your credibility:
Goodbye.
Obviously it depends what you like, but the seafood and rice dishes were excellent. And there's also Mozambican food with spicy piri-piri sauce... can't get enough of that.
I would recommend to try their fish and seafood, it’s fantastic.
You can find Italian restaurants all over the world. Where are all the Portugese restaurants if this cuisine is so brilliant?
It can be hard to know what to eat and often more importantly where to eat as a tourist, and in Portugal its often (in my experience) the last obvious establishments that are the best (often places you don't even think sell food).
Doubt there is one (some might say apple pie) and the only thing I can think of that unites all the different American cuisines and regional variations is the sandwich.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/dining/field-...
Big Mac?
Spain/Portuguese food isn't snobbish or fancy, but it's generally good. As a matter of fact I find that the baseline for what is bad in these places is actually quite high.
That is not the case for your average Italian restaurant around the world. Most of them are not that great.
The best National food after Italian (and maybe Japanese) is Georgian, but you don't see their restaurants worldwide either.
Georgia being a tiny third world country that hardly anybody knows about might have something to do with their lack of cuisine reach.
Portuguese is like the 5th most spoken language in the world. That’s pretty damning.
Now with this said, Portuguese food is medium. There are great cheeses, great starters but then it goes downhill.
Again, I have nothing but live for that country and people living there, the culture and whynot but food is not the first thing (or the 5th) when I think about Portugal.
I’m in Mexico right now having a lot of fun
The bread is awesome everywhere.
Here it is ladies and gentleman. Portuguese people love bashing Americans. They have a really narrow minded idea of what an American is, and that's that ("Americans are fat", "Americans are stupid").
Portuguese people consider themselves worldly and educated, which is ironic because for the most part they tend to be extremely provincial. I bet you that the average Californian has tried more foods than the average Portuguese person even knows exist. They don't know much food-wise, that's why they think that salted codfish and cabbage is great food, like someone else mentioned.
Source: I was born in Portugal, lived most of my life in Portugal, now moved to the US because Portugal isn't great. Pay is low, services are atrocious, food is hit and miss (but limited in variety), and people are narrow-minded.
That’s how I understand your comment.
In that aspect, yes, absolutely. The US provide access to variety of « world cuisine »
I bet it’s harder to find good niranja in Lisbon than Columbus, Ohio.
This is not limited to Portugal though; this sentiment exists in many countries, especially among people who have never been in America. But yeah, like your anecdotal, I have many anecdotes too; like Americans in Thailand saying the food is disgusting; they only went to 5 star hotels with EU/US type food. In Thailand. And that wasn't the first or the last time in Asia. I like eating in the US, and I like to go there and meet new people. I moved to Portugal a few years ago and everyone Portuguese I meet (generally programmers) would like to live in the US, at least a few years. So not sure, guess depends on many things. I guess, like I always say, if you don't like it somewhere, just pack up and leave; good you did as you don't seem to like it. I will move too in a few years, not sure where, but we'll see.
Maybe your experience and people who live in LA or SD differs but seems fuckall want to visit SF. None of my friends outside of SF work in tech either. They’re all normies. (Professors, teachers, engineers, sales, etc.) I don’t think people visit SF for fun very much.
A large percentage of the Portuguese people speak and understand some English, and nearly all people under 30 speak English fluently. And no one, ever, has been anything but delighted when we (try to) speak in Portuguese. They are very patient, really want to help us learn their language, and are fine with translation apps.
I suppose you could see all of the tourist attractions in Lisbon in a (long) weekend, but living here lets you see so much more; it is a culturally rich and interesting country. As for cultural attachments, I guess I'm not sure what that means; but if it means "people and places being the way I am used to", then I respond that for us, it is fascinating and fun to see how other people and places are; seeing what other ways of doing and thinking are possible. It is an adjustment, definitely, and it may not be for you.
It is true that rent prices in Cascais are higher than we had hoped they would be, but they are still significantly lower than what they are in Seattle. Our apartment here is at least half as expensive as it would be in Seattle. And groceries, utilities (including 1Gbs internet), restaurants, consumer goods (e.g. clothes) are dramatically less expensive, as well.
And finally: Yes, it is SO MUCH safer here than in Seattle. The constant tension of looking over your shoulder is gone; you have no idea how heavy a mental weight that is until one day it is lifted.
I had thought it was exclusively a preserve of the British in anywhere in Europe that's sunny, and people who moved to Singapore or Dubai for the money, but hey, welcome to the club, Californians into yoga!
Expats are typically people living outside their country on a non-permanent basis (on assignment or some temporary basis), with no intention to permanent emigrate to the country.
Immigrants however are people who move to a country with the intention of settling there permanently.
From the article's description, it sounds like these folks are expats, probably in Portugal on a D7 or Golden Visa (both are temporary visas). Some may elect to apply for citizenship after a period of residency (5 years), in which case they would become immigrants if the choose to remain. I guess some just stay long enough to get an EU passport, and then they buzz off -- then they wouldn't be migrants.
I've met British people who've been in NZ since the 1980s who still consider themselves ex-pats - and can still complain about how our Weetbix is nothing like good ol Weetabix.
But then I've met people from Britain who've been here for 10 years, and considered themselves a Kiwi for 10 years too.
I guess it comes down to their mindset.
How is this different to any other migrant who misses something from their homeland? Why does it bother you, and why do you see it as an indication of a deficiency of mindset? Shall I similarly hold something against migrants in the UK who prefer something about their homeland? I can't imagine keeping this attitude.
I've lived in other countries but have never called myself an expat. In my experience, the term has been used exclusively by others, mostly non-white people, to describe me.
It's no different from Chinese migrant communities in my hometown calling themselves "Overseas Chinese".
It's a stereotype because it's often true. And the usual response is "well, if Britain was so much better, why are you here?"
They're obviously here because Britain wasn't better. But they still trash talk the country that allowed them in.
(Weetabix was an example, not the limit of the complaining).
If I moved to the UK, after 40 years I'd let go of the fact that my home country's coffee (for example) is so much better, because I've obviously chosen to spend four decades in the UK because I find it better than my country.
To repeat myself, it's the mindset. If, after four decades, you're still comparing the country you've moved to unfavorably to your home country, then your mindset isn't one of integration. It's one of colonialism.
Who gives a fuck about the differences between different brands – or, even more meaningless, local varieties of the same brand – of chipboard as food?!?
Another example is British newspapers which use "corruption" when writing about alleged corruption in African countries, but use "sleaze" or "controversies" when writing about alleged corruption in the UK.
> Immigrants however are people who move to a country with the intention of settling there permanently.
I think those are the textbook definitions, but in reality expat is usually applied to those from higher income countries only.
Do this quick experiment, do an image search "expats in <destination_name>" vs "migrants in <destination_name>" and compare the pictures:
See what their income appears to be, clothing, skin color and circumstances.
Dubai:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=expats+in+dubai&t=h_&iax=images&ia...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=migrants+in+dubai&t=h_&iar=images&...
Costa Rica:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=migrants+in+costa+rica&t=h_&iar=im...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=expats+in+costa+rica&t=h_&iar=imag...
For example, for 'expats in Costa Rica' I got shown a couple in an outdoor hotel, and for 'migrants in Costa Rica' I got shown the Immigration Police detaining a group from Africa and a dozen people sharing a bed.
Expats are those who are neither looking for work, learn the language or associate themselves with the locals, add to local culture.
But you’re right, not all migrants are treated or categorized the same way.
I’m myself an expatriate, I left my country and immigrated somewhere else. Nobody would ever call me a migrant even if it is technically correct because I don’t match the stereotype (due to my nationality, social class, money, etc).
When did those get disentangled?
You can do the opposite, imagine someone from a poor neighborhood who then start to gain wealth, their money alone will not make them be part of the upper class (im quite sure there is a woody Allen movie with this exact premise).
What distinguishes social classes is in part wealth, but that’s just one component.
Expats are on long term vacation. They rarely get citizenship, even more rarely participate in politics, or integrate into the community with the intention of their children being raised there though university years. If there is a war or famine Expats will immediately go back "home".
Migrants on the other and are "your people”. They may not look like you, but they intend to become a permanent fixture in the country. In a war, migrants are the first to volunteer because patriotism is strongest in those who explicitly chose their nation state (and also countries offer citizenship guarantees for soldiers).
Not at all.
>When it's done by whites – or actually, anglophone whites – it's not even called immigration
It's called "gentrification", and it's bad according to the left.
>When others, i.e. non-anglophone non-whites, do it, that is.
When non-Whites do it it's openly celebrated, and more is called for.
You seem to have got it backwards.
But when white anglophone people do it, it's not only normal, but so extra-chic that they're not even called immigrants but "expats". Pointing out that this is a bit of a silly level of privilege is hardly "Anglophobic". (On the contrary, your claiming that it is comes off as rather like bigoted white Americans wailing that "It's really the white man who's oppressed nowadays" when their privilege is pointed out to them.)
And as a born and bred lifelong European I don't think I'm particularly "Europhobic" either.
Ireland offers an "investor" residency program with a €1M buy-in. Just as charming and scenic, although worse weather, plus they speak something very like English <jk>.
All of these countries, as well as New Zealand and Australia, offer residency to people of working age with professional qualifications in any of a long list of skills.
Or just have that much in your bank account?
It’s effectively a 250k investment requirement (property purchase of similar). So it’s not a net worth thing.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent...
I genuinely don't 100% get it.
In general, they want higher salaries (like you mentioned), but there also seems to be a clear disdain for most of the portuguese cultural heritage, to be honest. This might be an ecochamber (I'd put money on it being the case) but most people "around me" who are in "the tech world" are pretty much diametrically opposed to most portuguese customs and culture. They don't really identify with the country, the history, the religion, the folklore, the politics, the sports...and if you add the income disparity to it, it makes sense that they want to leave.
If not for the will of my Significant Others throughout the years, I would have definitely left a looooong time ago.
(Man, I find it somewhat atrocious how much we like to tell the great stories of how we went and stole, raped, killed and enslaved during the time of the discoveries, all for our own pleasure (and that of our religion). I guess I can somewhat frame it in its time, but you will never hear me talk about our "great accomplishments" in that regard. I'm deeply ashamed of them, not proud.)
Is that really the general consensus over there? I'm trying to think of a way someone would rationalize decimating entire tribes over wood as a good thing but I'm coming up short.
Heck, we just had a president who thought Andrew Jackson was the best thing since sliced bread - and that guy is sort of the textbook definition of a cheerleader for genocide and slavery.
So, yes, people rationalize a whole lot of truly horrible stuff if it was "their" group doing the horrible stuff.
Edit: To be clear, that's not specifically about Americans or Portuguese. The "when we did it, it was good, but otherwise it's horrible" thing is a pretty universal trait.
I think this becomes more prevalent the poorer/less significant the country is today compared to their great past. It's the "good old times" phenomenon.
"Look at this cool palace we built and all the rare and exotic wood we used!"
"Where did you get the wood again?"
(See the general argument about decolonisation and re-contextualising within European countries, and fights over things like the Edward Colston statue)
It does not help that we have "Os Lusíadas" which is a literary wonder in terms of its form, but whose content is basically emphatically praising those times. I hate "Os Lusíadas" not due to its form, like many young people do, but due to its content and how it praises the story of how we went about being warmongers and rapists.
So while you say that people "rationalize", most people really haven't thought about it at all.
[1] We're one of those countries that are so small or have such an inferiority complex that we are obsessed with anything in the news or history of the world that involves us. We go crazy because Obama's dog is a "portuguese water dog", or because "Cristiano Ronaldo" is well-known, or because some character in a sitcom mentioned us. So knowing that we were once "great" or "responsible" for something usually fills us with never-ending pride. I can't get this mentality, and I very much despise it. I guess it just shows how disconnected I am. I love our people, and I think we're genuinely nice, polite and have decent work-ethic, as well as a country with reasonably beautiful landscape, a safe environment and nice weather (not for me, but for most people). However, that's about it. In other words, if a war broke out and I had to choose between leaving the country or fighting for it, I would definitely not fight for it, as it means very little to me. There are many things that mean much more to me than my country, and those I would be willing to fight for.
If you don't identify as Portugese, then most likely all these things will register as pretty decorations for your otherwise cosmopolitan life. If you do identify as Portugese, these things can register as an anchor preventing you from developing and exploring the possibilities of life.
That was certainly how I felt about the UK when I left in (3 decades ago).
For having access to good public transportation with regular frequency you need to live somewhere central in most of the big European cities. It might work out for you but locals are getting priced out because of these relatively rich Californian immigrants moving in and pricing out the locals. Now the locals need to move out to suburbs and use cars or not so frequent trains and buses.
Not that Portugal unique in its exploitative history, but this might speak to the mentality that the Portuguese "explorers" had when they went out into the world making their "great accomplishments".
If they were even all that different words to begin with. (Never actually learned Latin, just picked up words and phrases here and there.) In a mongrel language, originally Germanic but with massive direct and indirect Latin heritage, one can talk about someone's "daring exploits". Whose? Mainly, IME, those of people like Livingston, Stanley, Richard Burton (not the actor)... Explorers. "Exploits" as a(n English) noun does lead the mind more to thoughts of exploring than exploiting, doesn't it?
So go easy on your explorer-exploiters. The Portuguese ones were at least probably no worse, on average, than everyone else's.
("Verbing weirds language", they say, but it doesn't even need to -- language is plenty weird enough to begin with. All of them, probably. (OK, OK, except possibly Volapük and stuff.))
I left, now it is really hard to come back before retirement, due to the ways life drives us around.
It really feels like an ecochamber, or a generation thing maybe, because even with my regular visits I seldom meet people that think that way.
What I do meet, is the difference of working in Portugal, and how things work in central/nothern Europe.
Portugal is an amazing country with great food, people, and weather.
Kind of makes sense in that context. If youve got money the country is great. If you need to earn it it sucks.
You'll find similar problems in SE Asian countries. People want to escape their oppressive governments and lift their family out of crushing poverty and unaffordable living. People from North America and Europe see those countries as basically Disney World--just a world of beaches, forests, $1 meals and $100/month apartments, and they're more than happy to move in. Admittedly, I'm a person who also absolutely loved Vietnam (as a middle class white dude who has zero risk of ever running into political or social issues there and could afford anything I want easily), but I know countless Vietnamese people who have recently emigrated from there and hope they'll never have to return.
Most people moving into cheap countries are going there to live a lifestyle that in unachievable to them in their home countries.
I was thinking about Monaco, small town, but the actions are a high surveillance state with rigid rules, a monarchy. There simply are no poor people, but if there were, it would be seem as an oppressive autocrat (they have a congress/parlaiment, just like other autocrats do these days). But there aren't poor people, and its more like a perpetual gala.
They are so insulated from reality in their expat bubble that all the negatives locals see are actually positives to them.
I speak Portuguese (Brazilian) but most Portuguese people in the cities all seem to speak good English. Portugal is beautiful, has temperate weather and long coastline, really good clean food (sopa de legumes, leitão, sardinhas, etc), friendly people and easy access to the rest of the EU. And unlike traditionally aspirational places like Italy or Spain which are harder to move to unless you have the right lineage (for getting a passport), Portugal is within reach of middle class Americans.
That said, I was told that salaries aren't high for locals. For what it's worth, most younger people in Italy and Spain don't think their economic life is all that great either. The money seems to be in northern/central Europe, i.e. well, mostly Germany.
There are many places in the world where it's nice to visit but not to live, I would say, Portugal is the opposite. I could realistically see myself living there.
As I see it, immigrants from the US have something to do win from this deal: better way of leaving, affordable homes, lower prices, safety, free healthcare, free tuition, citizenship in EU. I wonder what's in it for the Europeans. As it seems, the Portuguese people have to deal with higher home prices, higher food prices, but maybe there is an upside for them too?
Money. That's what Americans are good for. Bringing in money they earned elsewhere.
And that money (while it raises prices) ends up in the hands of local companies, landlords and governments.
I have friends who've had their rents increase from +30% to +115% when renewals come up.
Massive tax benefits for Americans too.
A lot of people can't deal or afford the rent anymore, building new apartments is going at a slow pace and whenever a new housing project comes out, it's already sold out. Some houses have reached the 1 Million Euro price.
Lisbon is set to follow this same path which will make everything worse for people already living there.
It's a subclass.
Immigrants = moving there to settle down permanently, eventually naturalizing.
You can start off being an expat and turn into an immigrant.
Expat hasn't really been used with that meaning lately. Same as third/first world countries, gay or terrific.
Interesting that the Golden Visa is not doing applications in the big cities anymore.
Remember that there is an employment route that doesn't involve purchasing property in Portugal. I think its having 8 portuguese employees
What does that even mean?
Anyway. Rich foreigners make capital city too expensive for some locals. Hardly news. Come, learn Portuguese, have fun and spend your money. Portugal is a sovereign(ish) nation. Let them accept immigration as they wish. This theatrical hand-wringing doesn't help anyone.
Any place where just a tiny fraction, less than 1%, want to check out will get a wild market distortion.
Whether it was all those small and medium sized towns getting remote workers during the Alpha and hardcore Delta days
Or places in Portugal
The story will be the same
Completely & totally ignores the scale of market impact an expat/wealthy-immigrant people have. There's plenty of people who would rather live somewhere else. Most have limited ability to move somewhere & make an impact.
This story is about as opposite as that as can be told: the worlds 0.03% want cheaper places to live & will go commandeer their way into a conceniently available low priced local economy.
What your thesis totally avoids is that the the wealthy can afford & have the possibility of seeking lower costs of living, of setting themselves up high elsewhere. They will displace both locals & other people who might seek to immigrate to a specificly advantageous place.
There's hardly a scene more tragic to imagine. There may be some modest benefit for this area, but doubtful. This will just create market pressure in one of the few places that had been affordable.
California has a lot of people that fit the bill that you just described. This is an LATimes article about Californians in Portugal.
Everywhere I went over the last 2 years had California remote workers doing the same thing in that location. California has a lot of decently capitalized remote workers who dont require to be subjects of California’s or America’s problems.
The part where you said any group of people, and I said a very wealthy group of people.
In this regard, although your estimate is wildly vastly over-optistic, I tend to agree with your premise. Yes, around 400k Californians probably do pose a vast & significant threat to global order & probably are one of the biggest most exploitative & dangerous forces on the planet.
This particular state is home to people vastly more compensated than anywhere else. And they will wreak havoc upon the lower priced markets they seek to exploit & live well amongst.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/who-are-the-1-the-ans...
That they are feeling (vastly) better off than they would have IS a destabilization, just not in the negative sense.
Given that Trump is not the president since a long time and California is the most progressive US state, I'd think that Californians are fleeing progressive politics, not Trumpian politics.
Paying $3M for a house in SF but public schools aren’t an option because “math is racist” is fleeing progressive politics.
The great weight of stories published on this question indicates that people are vacating to live less expensively/more lavishly, not to be with people less politically progressive. Are there a few such people? Sure. But they’re hardly the majority.
There are a lot of reasons why people choose not to send their kids to public school. Sometimes it’s because they perceive the public school as unsafe. The primary reason isn’t because parents disagree with the math curriculum, but because they want to give their kids a leg up in the fiercely competitive race to get into a top university. When everyone around you is wealthy and smart, parents try to find whatever advantage they can.
Two things progressive schools don’t offer.
That many families aren’t leaving the Bay Area they are just pulling their kids out of school.
Why if not the progressive curricula?
""" Slow population growth: In the 1960s, the population in California grew 26%. Between 2000 and 2010, growth slowed to 15%, then 6.5% between 2010 and 2020. In 2020, there was a net migration loss of 0.5%, signaling that the state’s projection for the next decade, a slim 5.2 percent, may be high.
Aging population: In 1970, the median age in California was 28; in 2020 it was 38. In 2030, it will creep up to 40.
Birth rates: In the 1950s, the birth rate in California was 25 per 1,000 people; in 2020, it was 12. The previous low of 12.6 was in 1933, during the Great Depression.
Delayed marriage: In 2020, for the first time, women’s average age of marrying was over 30. """
And sorry, "slow population growth" is the same as "increasing population growth", so it doesn't explain a decrease.