> The United States itself had "open borders" for a long period of time. There was mass immigration from Ireland, Italy, and many other places and it worked out quite well for us.
There was no welfare state back then, and the economic situation was vastly different. Also saying it went "quite well" looks over all of the ethnic tension that took decades to fix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans#Discrimination
> Similarly Europe has 26 countries in the Shengen area. Some of the countries have a "better-than-average standard of living" and they're doing just fine.
Do you live in Europe? Schengen is only about passport control at the border, but any EU citizen had the right to work in the UK, no visa required. Eastern European workers lowering wages and quality of work for most British tradesmen and low skilled workers is probably the main reason for Brexit.
> In many metro areas property values have increased more the savings from the median income, meaning that the application, or aspiration, of the majority of people is going in reverse.
That's because a lot of people want to live in cities like Berlin. But don't worry, the Soviet Union had a solution for that, too!
You would get assigned a job by the central committee, based on grades, people you know, who you're married to, things like that. So a lot of people would get assigned to very undesirable places, such as villages or very small cities, thus solving the problem of too many people in large metros. Do you think that's an acceptable tradeoff?
Dude, the stock you get as a Facebook employee is literally money. It vests every month, so you can go to a broker every month and sell it for thousands of dollars of hard cash. No waiting for IPO, no hoping the stock goes up, no 4 year vesting, no board approvals, no nothing.
It may be close, but it is not literally money. If it were, then why wouldn't they just pay the money rather than going through the hassle and expense (for both the company and the employee) of issuing stock?
But that's all beside the point. I understand why these sorts of things may be appealing to people. They just aren't to me, so they don't factor in as "compensation" when I'm evaluating a job opportunity.
I'm a Romanian dev living in London. The tech situation in Romania is quite decent, there are a few good companies to work for, some established (Adobe, Fitbit, Bitdefender), some startups (UIPath, Taxify). Most of the market is outsourcing or offshoring, though, a lot of it for Western European traditional companies (think Mercedes, Bosch, Deutsche Bank etc).
Salaries are very small compared to American ones, but very good compared to the local cost of living. You can expect to make around $1500 to $4000 monthly, after tax. A nice apartment in central Bucharest is $550 to rent, $150k to buy (can be either half or double this depending on the area). The cost of most services is very low, a beer in a restaurant is $2 or less. You can afford mostly anything as a dev, as long as it's not imported.
The state encourages the tech industry by allowing tech workers not to pay income tax (flat 10% normally). You still have to pay social services, which is about 30% of the gross wage. Public transport is not the best compared to Western Europe, but far superior to anything I've seen in the US (lived in Seattle for a bit). The metro in Bucharest is quite good. Other public services (healthcare) are not that good overall, but you can find good options in Bucharest.
In my opinion education is excellent up until high-school, while universities are not so great. I would much prefer that my children study in Bucharest rather than London. You'll find many who disagree on this topic, though.
There are very few expats in Romania, so you'll really have to make an effort to integrate and learn the language. Most young-ish people do speak decent English though, and we are very welcoming to foreigners. Our language is not very difficult, it's very similar to Italian.
I think Romania is especially good if you want your own startup, because cost of living and salaries are low in absolute terms, and the state mostly leaves you alone if you pay your taxes, as opposed to e.g. the French bureaucracy. For micro-companies (revenue less than 1M euro) with more than 1 employee, you pay 1% tax on revenue. You can fund it on your own, and there are also a few local VC's, Radu Georgescu being the most well known.
'I would much prefer that my children study in Bucharest rather than London.'. Completely agree though not only in Bucharest. In our experience, the Romanian education system is way more rigorous than in the UK (in general) especially in maths and science & provides a great foundation for university - elsewhere! However it's not ideal for slow developers or kids who are not that bright. They would be able to take on broader interests in the UK.
>In my opinion education is excellent up until high-school
In your opinion how much does the specific high school matter overall? (For those who don't know Romanian education allows to apply for any higher education example arts to polytechnics if you pass the exams, unlike french education)
Being meritocratic there is competition to be able to get into the best ones.
> In your opinion how much does the specific high school matter overall?
It's the only thing that matters. Go to a top high-school (there's 1 or two in most important cities, 4-5 in Bucharest) and you'll probably have good to excellent teachers (and some bad ones) and smart, motivated classmates. Go to a bad one and...you won't.
Yeah, I think it being meritocratic is the most important part. For context, you have to pass a math and literature exam at the end of 8th grade and you get assigned to a high school based on your score and your preferences. Everyone prefers the same high-schools.
>For context, you have to pass a math and literature exam at the end of 8th grade and you get assigned to a high school
But what if someone failed miserably, does one still try to switch collective or choose a more humble mediocre one?
>based on your score and your preferences.
And failed to even get to choose on your own preference (computer science) so you are stuck (electrical engineering) because of failure. Is it worth it to do a switch?
Edit: see I am at a dilemma for the past 9 months in between deciding to stay or just switch highschool to a National College. So far I didn't took any action because thinking that it doesn't matter that much and being far too late for that.
> But what if someone failed miserably, does one still try to switch collective or choose a more humble mediocre one?
I don't know. I've never seen someone switch and do well, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
> Edit: see I am at a dilemma for the past 9 months in between deciding to stay or just switch highschool to a National College. So far I didn't took any action because thinking that it doesn't matter that much and being far too late for that.
Think about the future. What university do you want to study at? What grade do you want to get on your baccalaureate? Do you need the skills a better high school would give you (e.g. CS)? The name of your high school won't matter, just what you do afterwards.
> Even if you wanted to, it's nearly impossible to immigrate to the US as a skilled worker legally.
Nearly impossible? Come on, this is a gross exaggeration. Get a job at a FAANG or unicorn in Europe, work there for 1 - 2 years, transfer to the US on an L1 visa, then apply for H1B each year until you get it. I know several people who have done this. Hell, Microsoft opened an office in Vancouver specifically to move failed H1B's there until they can get an L1.
> As a tech lead / team lead over the last five years in a small East Coast market I've experienced real difficulty finding competent Software Engineers at any level.
Pay more. Google and Facebook use ridiculous interviews because so many people want to work there. They still hire thousands of people every year. Why? Mostly because they pay mid-level engineers over $200k. Can't afford that? Then we're not talking about "not finding people" anymore, just about not affording them.
$200k in Silicon Valley != $200k in a small east coast market. Hell, it doesn't even compare to the DC Metro area.
From talking to friends and family that live out there, plus a few folks who used to live in the Bay Area, someone earning $120k here would have to earn at least $200k out there to get the same standard of living.
Doesn't this assume that the interviews even get to the offer stage? How does paying more remedy 80% of your applicants failing fizzbuzz on the phone interview?
If you don't have the name recognition of the FAANG you're probably getting subpar applicants regardless.
> Doesn't this assume that the interviews get to the salary negotiation stage? If you don't have the name recognition of the FAANG you're probably getting subpar applicants regardless.
People talk about salaries, they know who the top hitters are. Here in London there are many hedge funds you never heard of that have 20 engineers fighting for one spot, because they pay 100k GBP, whereas most startups complaining about lack of people pay 40k.
It does not attract more applicants because they won't know about it unless you advertise a specific amount, which then creates other problems. You'd get a flood of useless people if the number is high. Some other people, underestimating themselves, would not apply. You remove the flexibility to hire both junior and senior people because one single pay number can't fit both. Even if you provide a range, you have the problem of pessimists and optimists assuming very different things about where in the range they might fall.
