[Que enspastic]

(01-25-2015 10:32 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 07:17 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

- Not pay for a single gourmet burger anywhere which costs around 9-10GBP.

My local gourmet burger place (called Byron) in London sells burgers for less than 7 pounds. They are amazingly good.

(01-25-2015 07:17 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

- Not pay for a movie ticket anywhere.

I went to see Birdman at the Barbican centre recently. It was 6 pounds.

I'm seeing 11.50GBP for Barbican to watch Birdman on its website. Odeon seems to be around 13GBP normally.

There's only one burger below 7GBP at Byron (the Classic) but once you include service charge it's over 7GBP. You also don't get cheese on the classic. Dirty Burger is good value.

[Que enspastic]

Of course London is the best place in the world to make money alongside New York. There was a bit of a detour about living standards earlier in this thread but money making potential is extremely high.

[jimukr104]

Studies/POLLS about standard of living are mostly nonsense since it is subjective. For example someone in Sweden may think he has a high standard of living because he doesn't have to pay much for education, health care and being a feminist he will VALUE the feminist system he lives under.
But most of those things come from the tax payer.

In the end what matters is someones Real income after taxes and factoring cost of living and then access for the things one enjoys/needs.

NYC is bad example because standard of living actually sucks unless one is rich. That is based on the average human wanting large home with a large property, etc. Those things are too expensive in NYC.

But if you value 1 room crappy apt's then you will love NYC.

Infrastructure measurements aren't an exact science either since people often use infrastructure differently and the well to do can make their own infrastructure.

Big mac index is probably more valuable.

[DaveR]

Canada and Australia both have a lot of socialism (or whatever you want to call it - safety net, wealth redistribution, Robin Hood, etc...). So if your aim is to live comfortably without doing much work, those countries are probably a good choice. One can easily achieve a middle-income lifestyle without putting in a lot of effort.

On the other hand, those countries' taxation systems are extremely repressive for the wealthy. If you have an independent income and earn more than $100k/annum, you're most likely better off somewhere else. Not only for financial reasons, but also because of the masculine, entitled women which socialism breeds.

Socialist countries are not bad for young guys, though. You can get your education and health care for free and quickly build up a reasonable level of savings. Once you've achieved that, try to move somewhere more conservative - London, HK, New York if you're in finance, law, management, etc. If you have an independent income source, most of the eastern european countries have attractive women, low levels of taxation and low cost of living.

[DjembaDjemba]

Considering that only a small percentage of people ever get into the City of London's exclusive club, I'd point at Canada/Australia as being better bets for getting more bang for your buck.

Most people aren't top 1%, or connected. If one is living in London; dreams of grandeur can quickly turn into the flat reality of a damp cramped apartment rental. Struggling to make ends meet on the meagre paycheque of a crummy service sector job.

In the city of London you're directly competing against the sons and daughters of rich arab Sheiks, Nigerian oilmen, Armenian diamond movers, Russian billionaires, and pretty much the whos' of who of the top earners of their respective countries. London is a global city, but it's no poor or even middle class man's city.

In Canada and Australia you can get by in any of the top 5 cities with a decent job (if nothing spectacular). Both countries offer generally good stability to get your footing right. Both are second to none when it comes to resources/trade tickets. With Canadian/Australian training in the petroleum or mining industry, your skills are global. And the barrier of entry lower for younger workers.

[Que enspastic]

For a keen traveller, the cost of travelling can swing things back in the favour of London.

Last year I flew to Northern Ireland, Thailand, Poland, Germany and Spain. On my trip to Germany, I backpacked south through Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary.

This year I have Thailand, Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania and Turkey flights already booked. I have a flight to Portugal and two flights to Germany planned by end of July. I will have something left in my travel budget for somewhere else late 2015. I have yet to pay over 100GBP for a flight to Europe and flights to Thailand, considered Australia's nearest desirable travel destination, can be as low as 370GBP return.

You can't travel properly if you live Canada/Australia unless you have a huge travel budget AND plenty of time.

[Praetor Lupus]

After a certain point, the 'standard of living' is subjective.

I live in one of the greatest cities in the UK, in a job I'm suited to and enjoy. I have access to a cheap and comprehensive public transport network. I have my family around me. Although my salary isn't huge, I earn enough to eat steak every night of the week and have enough spare cash to buy much of what I want each month. The local scenery is stunning enough to bring in tourists from across the world and if you're more comfortable in colder climates as I am, the weather isn't an issue. If I need to go to hospital, I can be seen to and don't have to pay a huge bill upon leaving.

I don't earn shitloads but according to my own personal taste, my standard of living has gone through the roof. I have enough for me. I'm not against earning large sums of cash - and indeed, I look to earn as much as I can - but I'm not moving somewhere else just so I can buy a few extra fucking baubles. I don't see how my situation could be improved by moving somewhere unfamiliar.

If you can, then have at it.

[Lou pai]

I heard one entrepreneur, (i forgot the individual's name) discussing the the main benefit of Canada in regards to business is that it is a combination of Western Europe and the US. He meant that in the US everyone believes that you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you hustle and that the US has a very high entrepreneurial IQ.

In regards to Western Europe he said that as a society it is not as entrepreneurial as the US and but tends to offer a better quality of life.

But that Canada had combined some of the better qualities of the US and Western Europe together. The US' ideas of entrepreneurship and lower taxes while still providing some of the social nets that Western Europe is known for allowing entrepreneurs to build companies while having some of their basic needs meet.

In regards to London, London has finance and now Silicon Roundabout that has been focused on fintech. If you are in looking towards working in the financial sector I would pick the UK over Canada.

[Moma]

I wouldn't live in the UK again at this point. Weather is too crappy and you pay too much for the same services you get cheaper in other places. It's also better to raise a family in Canada. Fresher outdoors and less crowd. You lot say it's better to make money in the UK but as Djemba said, you are using the top 1% as a measuring stick for success. Look at the UK members on this forum. Analyse their lifestyles. Then look at the Canadians. Canadians trump the UK lot. You may get a better stream of lizards living in London but you still have to bang them in your small damp flat. You may be able to travel to mainland Europe for cheap but you still carry a much lower disposable income than your Canadian peers.

[jimukr104]

Quote:

Socialist countries are not bad for young guys, though. You can get your education and health care for free and quickly build up a reasonable level of savings. Once you've achieved that, try to move somewhere more conservative - London, HK, New York if you're in finance, law, management, etc. If you have an independent income source, most of the eastern european countries have attractive women, low levels of taxation and low cost of living.

You make a valid point. It is also subjective based on ones job. Finance go to NYC or London.
If your a medical doctor, you be crazy NOT to come to USA where a doctor can be a millionaire after they specialize or open a practice.

But for a liberal arts background the country that is the most socialist might do!

In energy , you got a few choices.

It is all relative!

[Deluge]

(01-25-2015 12:43 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

Canada and Australia both have a lot of socialism (or whatever you want to call it - safety net, wealth redistribution, Robin Hood, etc...). So if your aim is to live comfortably without doing much work, those countries are probably a good choice. One can easily achieve a middle-income lifestyle without putting in a lot of effort.

On the other hand, those countries' taxation systems are extremely repressive for the wealthy. If you have an independent income and earn more than $100k/annum, you're most likely better off somewhere else. Not only for financial reasons, but also because of the masculine, entitled women which socialism breeds.

Socialist countries are not bad for young guys, though. You can get your education and health care for free and quickly build up a reasonable level of savings. Once you've achieved that, try to move somewhere more conservative - London, HK, New York if you're in finance, law, management, etc. If you have an independent income source, most of the eastern european countries have attractive women, low levels of taxation and low cost of living.

The U.K is more socialist than Australia and Canada, it's not even debatable. Higher tax burden, higher government spending relative to GDP, similar healthcare and education systems, 20% of Britons live in government housing.

[DaveR]

(01-25-2015 08:16 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

The U.K is more socialist than Australia and Canada, it's not even debatable. Higher tax burden, higher government spending relative to GDP, similar healthcare and education systems, 20% of Britons live in government housing.

In terms of taxation, labour laws, minimum wage, etc. it is very debatable. The UK's tax burden as a percentage of GDP is higher that of Australia and Canada, but a lot of it is due to consumption-based taxes (VAT and excises). There are plenty of opportunities for optimisation and offshoring of one's income if resident in the UK; for residents of Canada and Australia it's much more difficult, hence their relatively flat Lorenz curves.

I'm not really interested in discussing textbook economic statistics and other related BS, as it's all mostly irrelevant in practice. If you want to know the difference in practical terms, I'm happy to discuss it by PM. I develop offshore structures for a living.

[Deluge]

How socialist a welfare state is and how easy it is to offshore your income are two completely different topics. Most people are never going to do the later anyway.

[DaveR]

(01-25-2015 08:58 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

How socialist a welfare state is and how easy it is to offshore your income are two completely different topics. Most people are never going to do the later anyway.

They are not different topics at all. Socialism is all about redistribution of wealth. One of the countries in question provides the opportunity for its wealthy to exclude much of their wealth from the tax base, the other two largely do not.

It's quite ridiculous to state that "Most people are never going to do the later anyway" because most people fall into the marginal taxation brackets, most of the wealth is held by those who fall well into the highest tax bracket, and as for the UK, there are a number of jurisdictions in its periphery whose entire economies are dedicated to the offshore tax planning industry.

[GeroMeroHero]

Based off of this I would bet Canada.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[Deluge]

Most people don't offshore their income. Most people aren't wealthy enough to bother in the first place. It being easier to offshore your income in the U.K isn't a practical benefit of living there for the vast majority of Britons.

@GeroMeroHero by that logic then the U.S is more socialist than Denmark... (no. 12 vs no. 10)

[rudebwoy]

I think the numbers can be a bit distorted, I have lived in both places and can make a honest assessment.

London - you have a very wide gap between the haves and have nots. It is a financial capital hence you have a small percentage making obscene amount of money. The rest are barely getting by, I am talking everyday people. I was shocked how people live in shared accommodations and what they eat. Personally, I know people who don't live a great life and barely make do. As someone stated, government housing is popular.
Outside of London it is grim, unless you live in the countryside which is beautiful.

Toronto - very high standard of living. I know many people who make over 6 figures a year. If you hustle hard you can make it. The oil sands is a new thing and loads of Torontonians have moved out west, since jobs are hard to come by in Toronto.

GDP and rankings mean Jack shit. Canada has oil, copper, lumber, water/hydro, diamonds etc.

What does the UK have?

[DaveR]

(01-25-2015 09:17 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

Most people don't offshore their income. Most people aren't wealthy enough to bother in the first place. It being easier to offshore your income in the U.K isn't a practical benefit of living there for the vast majority of Britons.

And that makes the UK less of an egalitarian/socialist/welfare state. By the way, there are ~five million UK residents who use the non-domiciled ('offshore') tax regime.


Back to the point - Australia and Canada generally provide more opportunities for those starting out and without a lot of personal wealth. On the other hand, if you've established yourself and wish to increase your wealth, you'll probably be better off somewhere else where the women are not damaged and the tax regime isn't as repressive. London can be very attractive if you're in the right profession, especially for non-UK citizens who can claim a special status and pay a fixed amount of tax for up to twelve years.

[Krivo]

(01-25-2015 10:58 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

If you want to make a fortune - London.

Seeing as you asked where you'd make more money, London is the answer.

If you asked about better quality of life, I'd be unable to truthfully answer your question. Canada is a feminist shithole moreso than the UK for example but its spacious and has other benefits as many have mentioned above. For me London is 2 hours away from the places where i can bang the hottest women on the planet and it's not as heavily feminist as Canada. Plus some of them hotties live in London too

Depending on which region of Canada we're discussing, you're likely 2 hours (or less) away from arguably the hottest women in North America (Montreal).

[rudebwoy]

^Montreal is a great city no doubt, but compared to the places Bojangles is referring to it doesn't compare.

Feminism is a lot stronger in Canada than the UK.

[WesternCancer]

(01-25-2015 10:39 PM)Krivo Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:58 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

If you want to make a fortune - London.

Seeing as you asked where you'd make more money, London is the answer.

If you asked about better quality of life, I'd be unable to truthfully answer your question. Canada is a feminist shithole moreso than the UK for example but its spacious and has other benefits as many have mentioned above. For me London is 2 hours away from the places where i can bang the hottest women on the planet and it's not as heavily feminist as Canada. Plus some of them hotties live in London too

Depending on which region of Canada we're discussing, you're likely 2 hours (or less) away from arguably the hottest women in North America (Montreal).

I haven't been to the states long enough to form an opinion but Canada is nowhere near what is described as the American dating wasteland. There are tons of thin feminine women here -- well they're more 'simple' than feminine. The only place you'll ever hear any talk of feminism is in Vancouver, Toronto, or a university campus.

From personal experience:

Vancouver is full of hot yoga bitches, girls who like to stay active and dress fashionably, and tons of fine asian hunnies. If you have the cash to maintain a social life or if you can run broke hippie game you will roll in pussy.

In Edmonton you can go to the bar and fuck thin, slutty, 18 year olds any night of the week and more often than not they are conservative in their political leanings. unless you're at the university any mention of gender politics gets a blank stare or a laugh. They're mostly interested in the drama of relationships and getting knocked up by rich oil boys.

'small town' Canada (my experience is in BCs interior) is full of slutty, traditional-ish party girls who just want to have fun and fuck. The okanagan has some of the best summer weather in the country. The girls are beautiful, tanned, and easy going.

[bojangles]

(01-25-2015 10:39 PM)Krivo Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:58 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

If you want to make a fortune - London.

Seeing as you asked where you'd make more money, London is the answer.

If you asked about better quality of life, I'd be unable to truthfully answer your question. Canada is a feminist shithole moreso than the UK for example but its spacious and has other benefits as many have mentioned above. For me London is 2 hours away from the places where i can bang the hottest women on the planet and it's not as heavily feminist as Canada. Plus some of them hotties live in London too

Depending on which region of Canada we're discussing, you're likely 2 hours (or less) away from arguably the hottest women in North America (Montreal).

Oh I have no doubt about the hotness of girls from Montreal, I met plenty in Cuba on a 2 week stint a few years back, however compared to the EE and the Balkans? There's no comparison unfortunately.

Also getting into the financial sector and earning upwards of £50,000 a year is actually quite easy as long as you have the right qualifications. Sure London is expensive but I didn't mind sharing a house with 3 other people who I knew well. I didn't mind having to travel to work on the underground, I didn't mind honing my daygame amongst 10 million people. I enjoyed going out to bars and clubs, taking girls home, doing cocaine.

I don't live that life anymore but I will do again at some point. I enjoyed it for 11 years and it helped me conquer many destinations around Europe. The most I paid for a flight was around £170.

There's a lot of upsides despite the expense of London.

Anyway, I'm not sure i'm making a point here, that was more of a ramble.

[a.canuck]

There have been some great responses to this thread. My experience having lived in both countries is that it all comes down to what you are looking for, if your looking for a better standard of living and potential for wealth growth - Canada has more opportunities to start from the ground up. Also in terms of standard of living there is very little comparison between the UK and Canada.

As an example: I graduated with a computer science degree in the UK - my starting salary in the UK from multiple offers was averaging around £26k.
When I applied for the same job in Canada my job offers were averaging at $75k.
Again this is a small sample from a very specific market but it serves to indicate the differences in standard of living.

Disclosure: I'm a Canadian/UK citizen

[Foolsgo1d]

(01-25-2015 09:32 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

I think the numbers can be a bit distorted, I have lived in both places and can make a honest assessment.

London - you have a very wide gap between the haves and have nots. It is a financial capital hence you have a small percentage making obscene amount of money. The rest are barely getting by, I am talking everyday people. I was shocked how people live in shared accommodations and what they eat. Personally, I know people who don't live a great life and barely make do. As someone stated, government housing is popular.
Outside of London it is grim, unless you live in the countryside which is beautiful.

Toronto - very high standard of living. I know many people who make over 6 figures a year. If you hustle hard you can make it. The oil sands is a new thing and loads of Torontonians have moved out west, since jobs are hard to come by in Toronto.

GDP and rankings mean Jack shit. Canada has oil, copper, lumber, water/hydro, diamonds etc.

What does the UK have?

You're right about London but you don't come close on the latter part of your post.

Canada has oil. A lot of countries have oil and are at the mercy of the Saudi's policies.

Canada does not have a financial capital that can by its own initiative get a country out of trouble and keep it there with little problem. The UK is attached to an entity that is for all other purposes a black hole where money goes and is never seen again.

I just don't get this foreigner concept where the British isles is a shit dump. If you go to inner city shitholes then yes, you will find problems but compare them with other countries and they're a breeze in comparison.

Here you'll get mean-mugged by chavs and Muslim gangs. In Canada, USA, South America and many parts of Europe you will get murdered pretty easily.

[Constitution45]

Personally I would say London is a trap for most normal people. If you are earning 19k to 30k, I would say your best bet is moving to Birmingham, Manchester or Bristol. You will be able to rent out a decent apartment in the city centre, and there are a lot of modern ones that have been built now. As well as you will have extra cash to save up with. Property prices in London are just going to continue to shoot up International big money keeps on flowing in. Property is an investment here and it won't die out because Britain will never run out of selling its reputation.

The United Kingdom is good for making money but its the quality of life that gets to most people. A lot of Eastern Europeans make this statement, so go and figure. U.K is a good location to travel across Europe with cheap air travel which is a plus but if you are working the competitive city, are you going to have enough time or energy to afford breaks. It can be done but small details such as that have to be taken into account.

From a personal perspective, I wouldn't live in London. The market here is over saturated and entrenched, the East will offer better opportunities, especially for those with Western educations and high enthusiasm. On top of that public service jobs, such as police, paramedics, nurses. Who can afford to live in London with those salaries. You will have to live far outside the city limits or run down areas in the outer zones.