If you Decided that you've had enough of US, what Country would you Move to?

Too cold in the winters.

I'd do Mexico City, parts of Spain, or even London.

Food, weather, culture, and quality of life are probably most important for me when picking a new place.

I'm in NY right now and kind of sick of the winters here.

I'm beginning to think I'd be ok on a little island with my buddy Wilson. He's a ball!

I'm impressed that the world knows of an anonymous poster on a running site. No one knows who you are.

What a copout.

If you really wanted to discuss, you could find figures properly adjusted for inflation, instead of feelings, because the inflation was real, as your link to the WSJ said "inflation took a bite".

Initially you said for the last few decades and now you are hanging your hat on the last 10 years.

Not sure what "smartly" is supposed to mean, unless it means a little bit.

When you look at your curve, I could have gone back to the beginning of your chart to 1979, and make the same points through 2014 -- 35 years with no wage gain for the median income. This can only be described as stagnation, despite the dramatic increase in wealth and productivity.

We are all aligned that wage progress was made in the last 10 years.

The reasons for all of this are detailed and worthy of discussion. For example at and below the median, men and hispanics are worse off, and women are much better off, but college graduates are earning less, and non-income benefits, like health coverage, is dropping across the board, adding the expense of private insurance. And how do other factors, like student loan debt, and rising house prices factor in?

It always gets your attention. So what is your fixation with demented?

Lies and falsehoods are your thing. You should stay in Trump's America.

i moved to switzerland, haven't regretted it once. the US is a dumpster fire.

The Trumpers are at home with that. They caused it.

look, internet chat doesn't work here unless we look at one point at a time.

You say median hispanics are 'worse off. '

But then I can show you data that show hispanic REAL AFTER INFLATION wages are up 26% this century.

Do you choose to engage on that one point? I don't want to read a post with 10 points that I have to pick and choose from. And why do you think with wages up that strongly that hispanics are 'worse off?'

fred.stlouisfed.org

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Hispanic or Latino

Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over: Hispanic or Latino

Open link

I moved to germany. There are plenty of problems here, but I've never been happier

The irony. The US under Trump is taking a path similar to Germany in the early thirties.

America, pre-Trump.

I D A H O

Moved here from the Socialist Republic of Seattle and LOVE it....

After I've filled up on milk and honey, I'll cash out and retire to Canada. A really cold part where you MFs won't come to annoy me.

Americans always feel bad, for sure. That’s capitalism for you.

Economics is a social science bc behavior or how people feel about what’s going on is part of it. You can’t discard the psychology of money.

Also, is inflation part of these numbers? Greater incomes don’t matter if everything else went up too.

Not true.

Germany in the early 30s was marginalizing jews.

Trump is a jew lover.

if I cite a data point described by the word 'real' then yes, that means inflation is taken into consideration.

I didn't specifically want to talk about hispanics, but sure, it can serve as an example. I didn't say hispanics were worse off, "congress.gov" did.

I gave you charts from "congress.gov" while you gave me charts from the Federal Bank of St. Louis, sourcing the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have no reason to think either are lying, so what can explain the difference between -2.2% and +26%? Are we comparing apples to apples?

Remarkably, they are both ultimately based on the same "CPS" data, and both seem to be CPI adjusted, although the "congress.gov" says CPI-U.

One difference is that my charts range from 1979 to 2019, while yours ranges from 2000-2025. If we cut yours off at 2019, the wage growth is 17.8%. Does that mean that median hispanic wages dropped by 20% between 1979-1999? That is consistent with your first chart showing a significant drop from 1979-1981, and remaining flat until the late '90s. Maybe that lasted longer for Hispanics. It looks like all the wage gains from 2000-2019 were significant, but maybe just significant enough to bring them almost back up to 1979 wages. If I found a more recent report, perhaps the hispanics would have finally seen positive gains including the last 6 years. But recall, I was talking about the growth and productivity since the Reagan-era in the '80s, and how that didn't trickle down.

Another difference is yours is labelled "Full-time employment", while mine says "employed (full- and part-time)". Are the part time wages making a significant difference? Is there a significant shift from higher paid full-time to lower paid part time work?

It's concerning that both sources seem to be presenting CPI adjusted data from the same source, but you find a report showing +26% while I find -2.2%.

Another point that "congress.gov" makes is that wages are about 70% of the story: "While wages are typically the primary component of compensation—accounting for about 70% of compensation for the average worker—non-wage compensation, such as employer-provided health insurance, paid leave, and retirement contributions, plays a role in living standards as well. Workers may experience gains or losses in wages but overall compensation may not track these changes exactly because of the cost of non-wage compensation."

Hope this helps...

worldpopulationreview.com

Most Promiscuous Countries 2025

Interesting information on the most promiscuous countries, showcased by The Global Promiscuity Index (GPI), analyzing the promiscuity by six indicators.

Open link