Most people on this website are probably aware that most people have an irrational bias in favor of living where they're used to- therefore, it is at least worth considering moving somewhere else as the intuitive cost-benefit ratio (if it can even be called that) is likely scewed.
My general knowledge and geography is, however, rather poor. There are a few things I want to know about- some general questions, and some things that require at least some rationality to assess.
What I want to avoid:
-Laws restricting my ability to 'go about my buisness' (e.g laws in Europe involving intervening in a crisis)
-Weak property rights (I'd count everywhere where it's illegal to kill a burgular robbing my home- weak meaning weak relative to what I want, admittedly)
-Places of poor employment for whatever profession I go (most likely lawyers).
It's easy to work out where those are the case now- but gaining a decent model of where a country that's nice to live in may exist in the future (i.e no censorship, strong economy, good employment and wages, little interference in my life) is very, very difficult even in the best case scenario. Furthurmore, it's almost certain I can't secure them all.
Does anybody know of any countries where it is likely that over the next two decades or so these standards are at least likely to be well met? I know it's unlikely, but the expected value of posting this is positive and I place a high enough value on finding out that I'm giving it a try.
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by [deleted] ·
2011-09-22T13:46:13.625Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Have you considered renting as opposed to buying somewhere for two decades?
As an example, say you pick Texas, and you buy a home in Dallas Texas, planning to stay there for 20 years. Then, you receive an opportunity to go take a job in Houston Texas at substantially more pay 3 years into your mortgage, but you'd have to move.
This can happen to any place we pick, to any of your five criteria, over 20 years. Recessions can occur, Laws can change, etcetera.
Renting as opposed to owning allows you flexibility to switch much easier. If Texas encounters a recession, you may be able to move to Maryland to take advantage of a biotech boom. If Maryland passes too many restrictive laws, you can move to Florida. If Florida then weakens property rights, you can move to Britain. The specific locations don't matter as much for these examples. The important thing is that you are not as tied down, and so can fine tune your location to your five criteria.
This is not to say that renting is certainly the best for all circumstances. If it turns out Texas worked for 20 years, and you rented for those 20 years, it probably would have been better to buy.
Bear in mind that there are both Pro and Anti Rent oriented sites on the web, which will tell you things like "Never rent ever, you are throwing money away." and "Never buy ever, it is a financial death sentence if anything goes wrong." A full discussion of this would probably be outside of the scope of your question. But there are a lot of rent vs mortgage calculators available to run the numbers for you, such as here: http://realestate.yahoo.com/calculators/rent_vs_own.html
Replies from: Carinthium
↑ comment by Carinthium ·
2011-09-23T02:42:43.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The main reason I was against renting is that it tends to be low status to rent (since poor people who can't afford to buy often rent). You have a good point- it's just an additional tradeoff.
comment by KKL81 ·
2011-09-17T19:18:05.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Unlike you, IANAL, but killing burgulars would be legal in most places if you can convince the courts that someone's life/health was in serious danger at the time, and that violence was the only reasonable option, wouldn't it? I mean, as long as you can argue that the violence was not excessive relative to what it would take to passivate the dangerous burgular, and that death was an accidental side effect and not intended?
That is, for some local interpretations of "serious", "reasonable" and "excessive", surely. Is it your impression that these things are interpreted too much in favor of the burgular in some places, or do you object to the principle that danger-to-life should determine whether killing trespassers should be legal or not?
I am new here on Less Wrong, and I hope I don't invite too much mind-killing here… But still, I'm a bit curious about this.
Replies from: Mercy
↑ comment by Mercy ·
2011-09-22T12:52:39.562Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
He might be offended by the fact that he'd have to go to trial and plead guilty. There was a case over here of a guy who got tied up with his family for hours by burglars, who broke free and beat one of them into a coma with a cricket bat. He initially refused to plead guilty and received a fairly lengthy sentence- commuted on appeal once he actually had the sense to admit it and plead circumstances.