Can we talk about debt (country debt) without getting political?

[creekland]

I hope we can.

 

Hubby and I are contemplating where we might want to live for either part of the year(s) or full time in the near future.  After the Puerto Rico debt bit (brought to light by the hurricane), I got researching "country" debt (per person) looking for somewhere financially decent.  I haven't been impressed.  It's actually kind of scary.  Here's a decent site with graphics, etc:

 

https://howmuch.net/articles/per-capita-debt

 

Can anyone explain how, exactly, this is supposed to "work out" over time?  When a family has debt, they have to pay it or declare bankruptcy.  There's no way average folks in these countries are going to be able to pay off debt.  (We can't do our 42.5K per person here in the US easily!)  And most countries are getting into MORE debt, not less.  I guess I see it like a family already in debt going ahead and getting another high limit credit card.  Uh...

 

The countries with the least debt aren't the most appealing to move to.  Kiribati could work for what we love, but it's so low lying, global oceanic increases are worrisome for erosion and water supply, etc.  I didn't even get around to checking to see how ex-pat friendly they are.

 

Is there a decent answer (to global debt or places to consider moving to)?  Or does the Hive think global debt is infinitely ok?  (Any economists here know more about it - economics isn't my strongest point beyond basic macro/micro stuff?)

[creekland]

ps  With it getting worse, my original list/graphics were 2016.  Here's Oct 2017, although without the fancy multi-country graphic:

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/this-is-how-much-debt-your-country-has-per-person/

 

In the US, we're up to $61,500 - and I thought $42,500 would be tough to pay off...

[Bootsie]

There are a couple of things that make a country's debt different than an individual person (or a corporation's) debt:

 

1) The amount of debt that someone can afford to take on depends on both their income and their accumulated assets.  Looking at the amount of debt itself doesn't really tell us anything about how easily the debt could be paid off.  (Bill Gates can have a lot more debt than I can and not be in financial trouble.)  If the US began to sell some of its assets (valuable land, for example) how easily could it pay off its debt?

 

2) As long as someone can borrow money, they do not have to pay off their debt or declare bankruptcy.  Especially the US government has not had any trouble finding lenders willing to lend money to it (at almost zero interest rates).  Routinely, the US government is considered the safest entity to lend money to (so the financial markets do not seem concerned that the level of debt is too high)

 

3) Countries can do something individual borrowers cannot do--they can print money to meet the legal obligation of paying the debt.  This can have detrimental effects on the economy--such as hyperinflation, so it isn't desirable, but it is a possibility.

 

That said, I am concerned with how much the US debt has risen in recent years.  As with any debt, it is not only the level of debt but how the money is being used that is important.  Debt that is used to invest in capital and long term growth can be "good debt" but debt to throw a party is "bad debt"  In recent years the government debt has not been used to finance a lot of what seems to be long-term growth opportunities for the economy.  

Edited October 22, 2017 by jdahlquist

[Bootsie]

ps  With it getting worse, my original list/graphics were 2016.  Here's Oct 2017, although without the fancy multi-country graphic:

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/this-is-how-much-debt-your-country-has-per-person/

 

In the US, we're up to $61,500 - and I thought $42,500 would be tough to pay off...

It is even worse if you look at the rate of growth of the debt versus the rate of growth of the population; when you consider there has been a decline in labor force participation in the US, the amount of the debt per worker is rising even much faster.  

 

I don't have the most recent numbers calculated, but over the 10 year period of 2004-2014, the national debt in the US was rising 9.7% per year.  Given population projections by 2060, if the national debt continued at that rate, the per person debt would exceed $3,000,000--that's by the time many of our children will be trying to retire.  Because the projections are that there will be only 239 million 18-65 year old living in the US in 2060, the amount of debt per working person (our taxable base) could well be over $8,000,000 per worker!

[Twolittleboys]

I don't necessarily think debt for countries is okay but I also don't think it is a great indicator when looking for a place to live/stay. There just doesn't seem to be that much of a practical correlation.

 

Looking at Puerto Rico, the way I understand it they have a lot of debt AND infrastructure etc. was already bad before the hurricanes which led to worse conditions (e.g. due to the power grid being less than optimal) and makes it difficult to rebuild. Both of these factors would of course be a disadvantage if you wante to move there. However, there are plenty of countries with fairly high debt (e.g. in Europe) that don't seem to have the same problem. Infrastructure there is just fine (some countries of course better and some worse) and in case something happened, they would be able to rebuild fairly easily (I think).

 

So while I do think it is problematic that all countries seem to have a lot of debt, I wouldn't worry too much in your situation. I don't quite understand country debt but I think many people in Germany for example could scratch together 31 k if they absolutely had to (Over a couple of years) - many own real estate etc. that is worth a lot more. Also, if the German government cut down severely on spending, it would be problematic/unpleasant but wouldn't cause complete disaster (e.g. roads would get worse but they could get quite a bit worse before it would be an issue). Some of the "green" countries seem much poorer and I assume standard of living is much lower.

 

All in all, I would not use this as a metric looking for a suitable place to live in (I would think safety, legal access, weather, cost of living, medical services etc. much more important).

[QueenCat]

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, making the situation different from independent countries. Puerto Ricans are American citizens.

[Bootsie]

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, making the situation different from independent countries. Puerto Ricans are American citizens.

Just like a state, Puerto Rico cannot issue its own currency to pay off the debt.  Countries like Greece are now in a similar situation in that they have given up their ability to do this to the European Central Bank.  

[creekland]

There are a couple of things that make a country's debt different than an individual person (or a corporation's) debt:

 

1) The amount of debt that someone can afford to take on depends on both their income and their accumulated assets.  Looking at the amount of debt itself doesn't really tell us anything about how easily the debt could be paid off.  (Bill Gates can have a lot more debt than I can and not be in financial trouble.)  If the US began to sell some of its assets (valuable land, for example) how easily could it pay off its debt?

 

2) As long as someone can borrow money, they do not have to pay off their debt or declare bankruptcy.  Especially the US government has not had any trouble finding lenders willing to lend money to it (at almost zero interest rates).  Routinely, the US government is considered the safest entity to lend money to (so the financial markets do not seem concerned that the level of debt is too high)

 

3) Countries can do something individual borrowers cannot do--they can print money to meet the legal obligation of paying the debt.  This can have detrimental effects on the economy--such as hyperinflation, so it isn't desirable, but it is a possibility.

 

That said, I am concerned with how much the US debt has risen in recent years.  As with any debt, it is not only the level of debt but how the money is being used that is important.  Debt that is used to invest in capital and long term growth can be "good debt" but debt to throw a party is "bad debt"  In recent years the government debt has not been used to finance a lot of what seems to be long-term growth opportunities for the economy.  

 

I fully get leveraged debt.  We've used that successfully ourselves (still do).  But one should still have some sort of limit "just in case" (even if the fallback is bankruptcy).  Printing more money sure doesn't seem to be the answer in the past with other countries.  Selling land... places like National Parks and Federal Land or places like Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase?  I'm curious just how much we have in assets should we need them.  This is true for any country we're looking at.  It's easy to calculate with my household.  For the country?  Has anyone figured it out?  Or do places still lend to the US (or whatever country) due to stability of the gov't more than perceived assets?

 

All in all, I would not use this as a metric looking for a suitable place to live in (I would think safety, legal access, weather, cost of living, medical services etc. much more important).

 

I'm still mentally figuring out how much it should be a factor to consider - esp in the event of anything major going on (Acts of God, War, or whatever) that rips things apart.  Safety obviously can evaporate pretty quickly in a disaster.  Weather is relatively easy to assess, but then there are storms.  COL and medical services are already in our consideration.

 

Sometimes I'm thinking hubby might have it right that our best bet is a sailboat and meandering, but I wish I knew I could handle being on a boat.  It's never been my preference.

[rebbyribs]

It reminds me of the posts on filial responsibility laws the other day.  A country's debt forces its younger generation to be responsible for paying for the things the generation in power wants right now.

[Bootsie]

I fully get leveraged debt.  We've used that successfully ourselves (still do).  But one should still have some sort of limit "just in case" (even if the fallback is bankruptcy).  Printing more money sure doesn't seem to be the answer in the past with other countries.  Selling land... places like National Parks and Federal Land or places like Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase?  I'm curious just how much we have in assets should we need them.  This is true for any country we're looking at.  It's easy to calculate with my household.  For the country?  Has anyone figured it out?  Or do places still lend to the US (or whatever country) due to stability of the gov't more than perceived assets?

 

 

I'm still mentally figuring out how much it should be a factor to consider - esp in the event of anything major going on (Acts of God, War, or whatever) that rips things apart.  Safety obviously can evaporate pretty quickly in a disaster.  Weather is relatively easy to assess, but then there are storms.  COL and medical services are already in our consideration.

 

Sometimes I'm thinking hubby might have it right that our best bet is a sailboat and meandering, but I wish I knew I could handle being on a boat.  It's never been my preference.

Governments can (and have) gone bankrupt.  Some countries have simply printed more money--but it has not been a good long-term solution.  The government could sell any assets it owns land, buildings, tanks.  It could also confiscate your property and my property and sell it to pay its bills.  People have attempted to calculate the value of the US government's assets, but it is not easy to get an accurate amount.  How much would Yosemite sell for?  The White House?  So estimates vary widely.  One important factor in continuing to lend to the US government is the stability of the government--much of the government debt comes due within the next five years; people assume that the US government will be able to again borrow money to pay off that debt.

 

I am not sure why you would want to factor this in when you consider where to live--is it because of the taxes you think you will need to pay?  the ability of the government to continue to provide services?  moral considerations?

[creekland]

Governments can (and have) gone bankrupt.  Some countries have simply printed more money--but it has not been a good long-term solution.  The government could sell any assets it owns land, buildings, tanks.  It could also confiscate your property and my property and sell it to pay its bills.  People have attempted to calculate the value of the US government's assets, but it is not easy to get an accurate amount.  How much would Yosemite sell for?  The White House?  So estimates vary widely.  One important factor in continuing to lend to the US government is the stability of the government--much of the government debt comes due within the next five years; people assume that the US government will be able to again borrow money to pay off that debt.

 

I am not sure why you would want to factor this in when you consider where to live--is it because of the taxes you think you will need to pay?  the ability of the government to continue to provide services?  moral considerations?

 

Because we're wondering how stable things will be when/if things go wrong.  How able are they to pick up the pieces and repair "life" if few others come to their aid?  We're considering smaller countries - many of them "second world" countries - or territories.  Large countries (US, Canada, etc) are probably ok because one region can help another and there's a sense of all being in it together (though of course after Sandy hit the northeast, not all the rest of our country wanted to help).  Smaller countries don't always have that advantage.

 

In the US, the only places that are even remotely tempting are HI and FL.  HI has a pretty high COL and is far away from everything.  Aside from those we love it, but those are big issues for us.  FL is pretty crowded in desirable areas, and TBH, we like mountains with our big water.

 

Prior to the hurricane/debt issue with PR, we hadn't paid much attention to debt in general (yes, Greece has it's issues, but it's not somewhere we're contemplating).  Now it has us wondering, esp in light of storms wiping out whole (small) countries of the type we're considering.  PR wasn't on our radar either, but other similar places are.

[FaithManor]

Iceland's debt per capita is a bit lower than the U.S.! If you can just get used to that no light, no darkness thing...

 

ðŸ˜

 

I had to edit. Stupid autocorrect turned Iceland into Ireland and I did not notice right away. Grrrr

Edited October 23, 2017 by FaithManor

[Bootsie]

Because we're wondering how stable things will be when/if things go wrong.  How able are they to pick up the pieces and repair "life" if few others come to their aid?  We're considering smaller countries - many of them "second world" countries - or territories.  Large countries (US, Canada, etc) are probably ok because one region can help another and there's a sense of all being in it together (though of course after Sandy hit the northeast, not all the rest of our country wanted to help).  Smaller countries don't always have that advantage.

 

I would not think that per capita debt of a nation is an important metric in determining how a country could recover from a major catastrophe.  While the west coast of the US might be able to help the east coast of the US in such an event, small countries are not necessarily at a disadvantage.  In fact, their debt might be a reason to get other countries to come to their aid.  Most of the sovereign debt of smaller countries is held by those outside the country.  These other governments and big banks want to be paid back and would put pressure on the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, etc to aid in rebuilding the country.  

 

I think the ability to get resources into the country (things such as government controls and distance to major supplies or resources) would be much more important.

[MotherGoose]

I'm no economist, but I think it's a bad idea for any person or country to have excessive amounts of debt. No, I don't know where the line is for any country, but I think the US level of debt is excessive. In my personal household, we have debt for the mortgage, and have had but won't have again, we hope, for cars. The car debt was living beyond our means. We could have gotten by with less but we wanted a new car. Thank God we haven't had medical catastrophes or things that are unexpected. I think many of the things upon which the US spends moneycould go under the category of living beyond our means. Before a country goes into extravagant debt or starts printing money, they should cut all expenses possible. I don't have details about numbers, because I don't have such information, but I'm very sure the US could cut significant amounts of money from programs across the board.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't fully understand this but two things I've heard. Japan's debt level skyrocketed after Fukushima. Is that true? If so it should rectify itself over time. The other is that you have to look at debt compared to GDP in the same way we look at personal debt relative to income. Those with low debt may be there because they aren't earning enough to borrow.

 

Sometimes it feels like we've created a big paper monster that we can't understand or control though.

[Bootsie]

I'm no economist, but I think it's a bad idea for any person or country to have excessive amounts of debt. No, I don't know where the line is for any country, but I think the US level of debt is excessive. In my personal household, we have debt for the mortgage, and have had but won't have again, we hope, for cars. The car debt was living beyond our means. We could have gotten by with less but we wanted a new car. Thank God we haven't had medical catastrophes or things that are unexpected. I think many of the things upon which the US spends moneycould go under the category of living beyond our means. Before a country goes into extravagant debt or starts printing money, they should cut all expenses possible. I don't have details about numbers, because I don't have such information, but I'm very sure the US could cut significant amounts of money from programs across the board.

As a % of the US Budget:

 

Social Security, Unemployment and Labor expenditures--about 33%

Medicare and Health--about 27%

Military--about 16%

Interest--about 6%

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

 

One concern is that interest rates are historically low levels--a slight increase in interest rates will significantly increase the amount of interest the federal government has to pay

[Bootsie]

I don't fully understand this but two things I've heard. Japan's debt level skyrocketed after Fukushima. Is that true? If so it should rectify itself over time. The other is that you have to look at debt compared to GDP in the same way we look at personal debt relative to income. Those with low debt may be there because they aren't earning enough to borrow.

 

Sometimes it feels like we've created a big paper monster that we can't understand or control though.

Japan's national debt was about 100% of GDP in 2000, today it is about 200% of GDP   (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEBTTLJPA188A)

 

Some of that increase was due to the world wide recession which led many countries to increase their debt levels around 2008.  Japan's increased further at Fukushima.

 

Yes, GDP is often used as a measure of ability to borrow-akin to income.  However, it makes the assumption that GDP is the government's "income"; in other words the government could tax all production to pay debt.  If government taxation increased significantly, it is likely that GDP in a country would fall.  

[Ausmumof3]

Japan's national debt was about 100% of GDP in 2000, today it is about 200% of GDP (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEBTTLJPA188A)

 

Some of that increase was due to the world wide recession which led many countries to increase their debt levels around 2008. Japan's increased further at Fukushima.

 

Yes, GDP is often used as a measure of ability to borrow-akin to income. However, it makes the assumption that GDP is the government's "income"; in other words the government could tax all production to pay debt. If government taxation increased significantly, it is likely that GDP in a country would fall.

Yes that makes sense. Thanks

[creekland]

Ireland's debt per capita is a bit lower than the U.S.! If you can just get used to that no light, no darkness thing...

 

ðŸ˜

 

No light, no darkness doesn't bother me at all.  However, as my body ages it can't handle cold all that well anymore.  Therefore, Ireland isn't a contender.  ;)

 

Folks who know us have joked that if we get wandering, they only need to look at a temperature map to narrow down where we might be - looking for that 70-85 degree range.   :lol:

 

I think the ability to get resources into the country (things such as government controls and distance to major supplies or resources) would be much more important.

 

Food sources have been a biggie for me.  I don't particularly want a place where all or nearly all food needs to be shipped in.  In the event of any major emergency, not having locally sourced food/water can be a huge thing.  Granted, crops can get wiped out in a weather event, but in a good location, things can be replanted so it's only for a season.

 

Then too, there's the more practical day to day reason that I like fresh local food rather than shipped in older varieties.   :drool5:

 

The flat sand based islands are out (Bahamas, Turks & Caicos, Caymans, etc).

[Twolittleboys]

Because we're wondering how stable things will be when/if things go wrong.  How able are they to pick up the pieces and repair "life" if few others come to their aid?  We're considering smaller countries - many of them "second world" countries - or territories.  Large countries (US, Canada, etc) are probably ok because one region can help another and there's a sense of all being in it together (though of course after Sandy hit the northeast, not all the rest of our country wanted to help).  Smaller countries don't always have that advantage.

 

In the US, the only places that are even remotely tempting are HI and FL.  HI has a pretty high COL and is far away from everything.  Aside from those we love it, but those are big issues for us.  FL is pretty crowded in desirable areas, and TBH, we like mountains with our big water.

 

Prior to the hurricane/debt issue with PR, we hadn't paid much attention to debt in general (yes, Greece has it's issues, but it's not somewhere we're contemplating).  Now it has us wondering, esp in light of storms wiping out whole (small) countries of the type we're considering.  PR wasn't on our radar either, but other similar places are.

 

Well, in that case I don't think debt alone will be a good indicator. It needs to be put in relation to other metrics (GDP?). For example, I feel pretty sure that Germany could pick up the pieces if things went wrong (unless they went really, really wrong but that would probably be too much for any country).

 

What's wrong with California? They have the right temperature and mountains, don't they? How important is language/culture for you?

 

Most countries in Europe would probably be good for what you are trying to achieve with your question about debt (i.e. yes, there is a lot of debt but it seems unlikely that things would break down completely). Europe is probably also one of the safest regions regarding natural disasters. Of course getting a visa or whatever may be difficult (though perhaps possible if you are retired and not looking for work?). Maybe Spain (if they don't start fighting), Portugal or Italy?

[Lanny]

Too much spending, not enough revenue.  For a country, getting a lower (worse) credit rating means that they cannot borrow money, or, that they pay a higher rate of interest for money they borrow, which increases their problem.  However, a country can print more money, which devalues their currency.

 

This also applies to City, County and State governments, but they are unable to print money. They sell Bonds. If their Credit Rating deteriorates, they must  pay a higher rate of interest on the money they borrow. Many local and state governments are in very bad shape with Debt that is overwhelming to them at this time.

 

 

[creekland]

Well, in that case I don't think debt alone will be a good indicator. It needs to be put in relation to other metrics (GDP?). For example, I feel pretty sure that Germany could pick up the pieces if things went wrong (unless they went really, really wrong but that would probably be too much for any country).

 

What's wrong with California? They have the right temperature and mountains, don't they? How important is language/culture for you?

 

Most countries in Europe would probably be good for what you are trying to achieve with your question about debt (i.e. yes, there is a lot of debt but it seems unlikely that things would break down completely). Europe is probably also one of the safest regions regarding natural disasters. Of course getting a visa or whatever may be difficult (though perhaps possible if you are retired and not looking for work?). Maybe Spain (if they don't start fighting), Portugal or Italy?

 

CA has never interested us.  For us it's a nice place to visit, but no appeal to live there.  I suspect it's a combo of HCOL, desert (vs green year round), and crowds.

 

Non-negotiables are:

 

-  BIG WATER.  Hubby is into sailing and hasn't been able to do much of it since we've been married.  Life has revolved around our pony farm and general farm life.  For the second half, he is going to get to sail on a daily or weekly basis if he wants to - at least - when we're in that section of the planet as we're not sure yet if it will be full time or part time (seasonal).

 

-  English as a main language.  I can get by in French and he can get by in Spanish, but neither of us wants something where the other is left out or needs to learn something new in our older life.  We can, of course, pick up phrases and common use, but we want the bulk of our exchanges to be in English.

 

-  Diversity.  We live in a particular bubble here in PA with some exceptions, but not many.  We love going places where there is far more diversity in "who's there" and the vast majority are ok with it.  This is one of the huge appeals of HI.

 

-  Low crowds.  We're country lovers, not crowd lovers.  We expect we'll be in a condo on or near a walkable beach, but we don't want millions of next door neighbors, and those neighbors we do have we want to be friends, not strangers. Talking story is part of our life.  Again, there's another vote for HI - not including Oahu, but we've found it to be similar in other island and smaller countries as well as rural.

 

-  Probably not non-negotiable, but definitely preferred is green.  We like visiting the desert, but living where there's a natural green carpet and plenty of water.

 

Obviously, the lower COL the better.  We don't need tons of amenities or protections from ourselves.  Second world countries have generally been fine in our explorations (though not all appeal for other reasons, etc).

 

Hubby can work from anywhere with his US based job, so work permits aren't necessary.  I can most likely find somewhere to amuse myself without being paid for it.

 

St Martin was top of our list - followed by the USVI and BVI, but now... we've found many more things we need to consider.  A country's debt may or may not have to be included in that.

 

Hubby wants to live aboard a sailboat and prowl being mindful of weather forecasts.  I might have to give that a try instead of going with my dream of a condo with a walkable beach.  I'll admit living aboard a sailboat has never even remotely entered my dreams though.  It's his love.

[Twolittleboys]

CA has never interested us.  For us it's a nice place to visit, but no appeal to live there.  I suspect it's a combo of HCOL, desert (vs green year round), and crowds.

 

Non-negotiables are:

 

-  BIG WATER.  Hubby is into sailing and hasn't been able to do much of it since we've been married.  Life has revolved around our pony farm and general farm life.  For the second half, he is going to get to sail on a daily or weekly basis if he wants to - at least - when we're in that section of the planet as we're not sure yet if it will be full time or part time (seasonal).

 

-  English as a main language.  I can get by in French and he can get by in Spanish, but neither of us wants something where the other is left out or needs to learn something new in our older life.  We can, of course, pick up phrases and common use, but we want the bulk of our exchanges to be in English.

 

-  Diversity.  We live in a particular bubble here in PA with some exceptions, but not many.  We love going places where there is far more diversity in "who's there" and the vast majority are ok with it.  This is one of the huge appeals of HI.

 

-  Low crowds.  We're country lovers, not crowd lovers.  We expect we'll be in a condo on or near a walkable beach, but we don't want millions of next door neighbors, and those neighbors we do have we want to be friends, not strangers. Talking story is part of our life.  Again, there's another vote for HI - not including Oahu, but we've found it to be similar in other island and smaller countries as well as rural.

 

-  Probably not non-negotiable, but definitely preferred is green.  We like visiting the desert, but living where there's a natural green carpet and plenty of water.

 

Obviously, the lower COL the better.  We don't need tons of amenities or protections from ourselves.  Second world countries have generally been fine in our explorations (though not all appeal for other reasons, etc).

 

Hubby can work from anywhere with his US based job, so work permits aren't necessary.  I can most likely find somewhere to amuse myself without being paid for it.

 

St Martin was top of our list - followed by the USVI and BVI, but now... we've found many more things we need to consider.  A country's debt may or may not have to be included in that.

 

Hubby wants to live aboard a sailboat and prowl being mindful of weather forecasts.  I might have to give that a try instead of going with my dream of a condo with a walkable beach.  I'll admit living aboard a sailboat has never even remotely entered my dreams though.  It's his love.

 

Hm, English as a main language does limit it quite a bit. Does it have to be the main language or would it be sufficient if most people can communicate even though it is not the language generally spoken (that would significantly widen the number of possible choices)?

 

How about Northern California/Pacific Northwest? I have little personal experience with that area but I think it is quite green (yikes, rainy!) and not that densly populated. COL may be a problem but I think parts of northern California are rather poor so may be less expensive?

 

Staying in the US would of course eliminate any language barriers AND visa problems.

 

You do need to be quite careful when it comes to working in other countries. For example people are not supposed to work in the US when visiting (for example) even if the job itself is not in the US (or no more than usual). So if you are a painter or writer you can't just travel in the US and write/paint (not even during vacation) - to me that makes no sense as you are not hurting the local job market and are instead bringing in cash but I am pretty sure that is how it is. I feel guilty even answering business emails while on vacation in the US (don't tell on me). Obviously, every country has different rules but don't assume that there will be no problem just because you won't want to enter the local labor market. I would think second world countries are more lenient in that respect (but I may be wrong).

 

Do you have any other countries you are considering? Britain/Ireland of course are green with lots of water. New Zealand? 

[creekland]

Hm, English as a main language does limit it quite a bit. Does it have to be the main language or would it be sufficient if most people can communicate even though it is not the language generally spoken (that would significantly widen the number of possible choices)?

 

How about Northern California/Pacific Northwest? I have little personal experience with that area but I think it is quite green (yikes, rainy!) and not that densly populated. COL may be a problem but I think parts of northern California are rather poor so may be less expensive?

 

Staying in the US would of course eliminate any language barriers AND visa problems.

 

You do need to be quite careful when it comes to working in other countries. For example people are not supposed to work in the US when visiting (for example) even if the job itself is not in the US (or no more than usual). So if you are a painter or writer you can't just travel in the US and write/paint (not even during vacation) - to me that makes no sense as you are not hurting the local job market and are instead bringing in cash but I am pretty sure that is how it is. I feel guilty even answering business emails while on vacation in the US (don't tell on me). Obviously, every country has different rules but don't assume that there will be no problem just because you won't want to enter the local labor market. I would think second world countries are more lenient in that respect (but I may be wrong).

 

Do you have any other countries you are considering? Britain/Ireland of course are green with lots of water. New Zealand? 

 

New Zealand is a place we expect we'd love.  It's on the list, but it's quite a distance from "home" if/when we want to return (to see boys, when hubby needs to catch up on his job in person, etc), so that gets factored in.  We've never visited, but probably will in a couple of years, esp if it stays near the top of the list.

 

And yes... technically countries have laws about working - esp the US (they're the most stringent we've come across) - but no one we know IRL is intent on enforcing those laws for the type of job hubby is doing, so we don't worry about that at all.  In your case, I wouldn't worry about answering e-mails either.  It'd take a "special" person to care about that and fortunately, few of those exist.  Places we are interested in would have very, very few - if any.

 

For language... it depends.  St Maartin is Dutch/French (with a bit of English spoken anyway) and it still topped our list - until the hurricane.   :crying:

 

The Caribbean or Atlantic regions in general are closest for return travel purposes giving them an edge.  Enough speak English to have options (thanks to multiple British colonies) - as long as hurricanes don't destroy them all.  And if destroyed, my mind wondered how much debt would be a problem with regrouping and rebuilding - esp countries vs territories (and even territories aren't faring so well).  I'm just not sure how much debt is a factor, if at all.

[FaithManor]

Hey Creekland, my autocorrect messed up. I meant Iceland not Ireland.

[Twolittleboys]

New Zealand is a place we expect we'd love.  It's on the list, but it's quite a distance from "home" if/when we want to return (to see boys, when hubby needs to catch up on his job in person, etc), so that gets factored in.  We've never visited, but probably will in a couple of years, esp if it stays near the top of the list.

 

Yes, it is awfully far from about everywhere else...

 

And yes... technically countries have laws about working - esp the US (they're the most stringent we've come across) - but no one we know IRL is intent on enforcing those laws for the type of job hubby is doing, so we don't worry about that at all.  In your case, I wouldn't worry about answering e-mails either.  It'd take a "special" person to care about that and fortunately, few of those exist.  Places we are interested in would have very, very few - if any.

 

I guess I am thinking that there is quite a difference between being on vacation and living there as far as enforcing this is concerned. If just on vacation, it doesn't really come up (i.e. the immigration officer doesn't have a reason to suspect anything) but if you want to settle there it would be out in the open so to speak. Which means it would only work in places that allow it (or are very lenient in that regard). 

 

For language... it depends.  St Maartin is Dutch/French (with a bit of English spoken anyway) and it still topped our list - until the hurricane.   :crying:

 

The Caribbean or Atlantic regions in general are closest for return travel purposes giving them an edge.  Enough speak English to have options (thanks to multiple British colonies) - as long as hurricanes don't destroy them all.  And if destroyed, my mind wondered how much debt would be a problem with regrouping and rebuilding - esp countries vs territories (and even territories aren't faring so well).  I'm just not sure how much debt is a factor, if at all.

 

I would think it also depends a lot on how "settled" you want to be/how much you would invest. If you were to buy a house in the Caribbean you would be rather stuck but if you just rented (or if a house was quite inexpensive) you could always pack up and leave if the situation deteriorated. In that case the ability to rebuild would be of less importance for you.

 

[Bootsie]

Too much spending, not enough revenue.  For a country, getting a lower (worse) credit rating means that they cannot borrow money, or, that they pay a higher rate of interest for money they borrow, which increases their problem.  However, a country can print more money, which devalues their currency.

 

This also applies to City, County and State governments, but they are unable to print money. They sell Bonds. If their Credit Rating deteriorates, they must  pay a higher rate of interest on the money they borrow. Many local and state governments are in very bad shape with Debt that is overwhelming to them at this time.

In the US, city, county, and state governments are usually constrained by a balanced budget requirement.  That does not mean that they cannot borrow, but the borrowing must be for something like building a building (long-term capital investment). They are usually prevented from increasing spending (like salaries) without an increasing tax revenue source.  

 

State and local governments are more likely to have serious budget problems, and, not only can they not print money to deal with the problem, they are often limited by law to expand their tax base and increase revenue.  This would be a much bigger concern to me if I were considering a place to live than the federal government deficit.  It can mean that fire departments shut down, schools close, etc.  California has historically had some of the worst budget problems in the US.

[Lanny]

In the US, city, county, and state governments are usually constrained by a balanced budget requirement.  That does not mean that they cannot borrow, but the borrowing must be for something like building a building (long-term capital investment). They are usually prevented from increasing spending (like salaries) without an increasing tax revenue source.  

 

State and local governments are more likely to have serious budget problems, and, not only can they not print money to deal with the problem, they are often limited by law to expand their tax base and increase revenue.  This would be a much bigger concern to me if I were considering a place to live than the federal government deficit.  It can mean that fire departments shut down, schools close, etc.  California has historically had some of the worst budget problems in the US.

 

Yes. California is one of the places where the you know what is going to hit the fan. School districts in the San Diego area, for one example, that had wonderful brand new High Schools built for them. No money down. No payments for 20 (?) years.  When the payment comes due, a lot of homeowners are going to see their Property Tax bill go so high that they will probably lose their homes.  Kick the can down the street is very popular...

 

And the unfunded Pensions. I think CA and IL are 2 states that quickly come to mind?

 

Puerto Rico isn't the only place with a severe debt problem. It's just much more widely known there.  Trump will probably wipe out their Debt, because of the Hurricanes recently, but they truly need to get their act together.  Trump warned Wall Street they are going to lose their "investment" in Puerto Rican debt and will need to write it off.  

[creekland]

Hey Creekland, my autocorrect messed up. I meant Iceland not Ireland.

 

Iceland looked gorgeous from the plane.  It wasn't clouded over this time so we got to get a peek!

 

BUT... it's still too cold for us to consider it as a relocation spot and have you ever tried to pronounce some of those names?  (We had friends from college who lived in Iceland for a while - they loved it - but the native language sure isn't easy!)

[FaithManor]

Iceland looked gorgeous from the plane. It wasn't clouded over this time so we got to get a peek!

 

BUT... it's still too cold for us to consider it as a relocation spot and have you ever tried to pronounce some of those names? (We had friends from college who lived in Iceland for a while - they loved it - but the native language sure isn't easy!)

Oh, it is a crazy language to be certain. The weather is temperate so it doesn't get as cold as Michigan, but also doesn't warm up much past 65 so ya...

[Ausmumof3]

New Zealand is great for sailing. It is cold though.

 

I personally think you should move to Australia. 😆

[Laura Corin]

 

 

And yes... technically countries have laws about working - esp the US (they're the most stringent we've come across) - but no one we know IRL is intent on enforcing those laws for the type of job hubby is doing, so we don't worry about that at all.

What kind of visa do you expect to have? Are you planning to invest a chunk of capital? Otherwise, how will you qualify for residence?

[katilac]

Personally, I would definitely not make a decision for several years after selling the current residence/farm and traveling for large chunks of time as a visitor. By that, I mean I would not buy property and I would not seek long-term or permanent residence. 

 

I do think that smaller "second world" locations are inherently less stable. I would research in depth what happens after a routine hurricane, a severe hurricane, and so on. Even if you have money, will you be able to get supplies? Health care? Will they have shelters if your residence is flooded or destroyed, or are you on your own? 

 

Due to dh's job, we came home sooner after Hurricane Katrina than many (but still not right after), and the conditions were a bit unbelievable. Strictly cash economy, very limited necessities (food, gasoline), no electricity, no landlines, you'd better be dying if you plan to see a doctor. It continued to be difficult to get medical help for a very long time. My dd broke and severely dislocated her arm over SEVEN MONTHS after Katrina, and the healthcare system was still in such disarray that it took 12 hours and a hospital transfer to get her into the operating room. It was insanely difficult for them to locate what was needed, including an available OR, plus available anesthesiologist and surgeon with privileges at said OR. ER waiting times were horrific, even for serious cases.

 

It was a serious, scary thing. If that was our experience here in the states, I would not want to be in a smaller country with fewer resources when disaster strikes. You can only control for so many factors. You can have emergency supplies at home, but that doesn't help if your residence is flooded or destroyed. You can evacuate, but you still have issues like health care long after you return. Just something to consider.

 

If you want mountains near big water, have you looked at Tennessee or northern Alabama? Sailing is not my thing, but I know that plenty of areas in both states have both mountains and water sports, including lots of sailing clubs. 

 

Slight digression: you said "though of course after Sandy hit the northeast, not all the rest of our country wanted to help" and I just wanted to tell you that the same thing happened after Katrina. Many groups and individuals were wonderful, but there were also plenty of people complaining about how stupid we (people in general) were to live in hurricane country, and how we shouldn't expect to be bailed out. Tons of ugly things were said and posted, and of course federal assistance was a hard fail in the immediate aftermath. Just remember that those people are the most vocal, not the most numerous. 

[FaithManor]

Australia scares me folks! It just seems like all the animal life forms on that continent and in the water surrounding it are out for blood!!!ðŸ˜

[creekland]

What kind of visa do you expect to have? Are you planning to invest a chunk of capital? Otherwise, how will you qualify for residence?

 

This all depends upon where we want to end up and for how much time of the year.  In any event, neither of us plan on working in the country (taking a job physically in that country).  Some countries only want money brought in.  Some like tourists up to 3 or 6 months of the year.  As we look at countries, we look at what they want to be welcome in their country.  That's nothing new on our end.

 

Personally, I would definitely not make a decision for several years after selling the current residence/farm and traveling for large chunks of time as a visitor. By that, I mean I would not buy property and I would not seek long-term or permanent residence. 

 

I do think that smaller "second world" locations are inherently less stable. I would research in depth what happens after a routine hurricane, a severe hurricane, and so on. Even if you have money, will you be able to get supplies? Health care? Will they have shelters if your residence is flooded or destroyed, or are you on your own? 

 

Due to dh's job, we came home sooner after Hurricane Katrina than many (but still not right after), and the conditions were a bit unbelievable. Strictly cash economy, very limited necessities (food, gasoline), no electricity, no landlines, you'd better be dying if you plan to see a doctor. It continued to be difficult to get medical help for a very long time. My dd broke and severely dislocated her arm over SEVEN MONTHS after Katrina, and the healthcare system was still in such disarray that it took 12 hours and a hospital transfer to get her into the operating room. It was insanely difficult for them to locate what was needed, including an available OR, plus available anesthesiologist and surgeon with privileges at said OR. ER waiting times were horrific, even for serious cases.

 

It was a serious, scary thing. If that was our experience here in the states, I would not want to be in a smaller country with fewer resources when disaster strikes. You can only control for so many factors. You can have emergency supplies at home, but that doesn't help if your residence is flooded or destroyed. You can evacuate, but you still have issues like health care long after you return. Just something to consider.

 

If you want mountains near big water, have you looked at Tennessee or northern Alabama? Sailing is not my thing, but I know that plenty of areas in both states have both mountains and water sports, including lots of sailing clubs. 

 

Slight digression: you said "though of course after Sandy hit the northeast, not all the rest of our country wanted to help" and I just wanted to tell you that the same thing happened after Katrina. Many groups and individuals were wonderful, but there were also plenty of people complaining about how stupid we (people in general) were to live in hurricane country, and how we shouldn't expect to be bailed out. Tons of ugly things were said and posted, and of course federal assistance was a hard fail in the immediate aftermath. Just remember that those people are the most vocal, not the most numerous. 

 

We aren't looking at doing anything quickly, esp selling our farm.  The farm might go to a lad anyway.  The next few years are going to be our traveling years to check out places on our list to be able to reorder it by on-site preference.  We just have to order the "visit" list - make that "reorder" it since some of our top islands aren't at the top any longer pending rebuilding.

 

I can believe your experience with Katrina.  Even with Harvey, Irma, and Maria I hear from some who still feel those who choose to live in hurricane country don't deserve help.  I mainly used Sandy because it's more local to us.  I also agree that it's not the majority of people saying these things - which is why I think large countries can/will band together to help each other.  When the whole country is affected, it's not that easy.

 

Neither TN nor AL are warm enough in the winter and TN doesn't even have a coast making it really difficult for hubby to get out on a regular basis.  It's similar to being here in PA.  We have lakes and shallow rivers, but that's it - nothing like oceans, the Great Lakes, or the St Lawrence River (deep, wide river).

[FaithManor]

Well you could join us in the Great Lakea Region but sailing in the winter is harsh!!! 😄

[creekland]

Australia scares me folks! It just seems like all the animal life forms on that continent and in the water surrounding it are out for blood!!!ðŸ˜

 

Australia certainly has its fair share of snakes which is in the negative column.  New Zealand and Hawaii do not.  ;)  (Apparently New Zealand can get sea snakes, but that's a bit different than the living on the land varieties.)

 

I'm not sure I'm as worried about crocs, sharks, or spiders TBH.  I just don't like snakes.

[creekland]

Well you could join us in the Great Lakea Region but sailing in the winter is harsh!!! 😄

 

Hubby has looked into the ice sailing that goes on... and he's enjoyed his time on Lake Ontario, but I'm pretty sure he's dreaming of Bali Hai (from South Pacific) or a reasonably similar equivalent with tons of marinas all around and endless sailing possibilities.

 

In a pinch, FL could work.  We lived there before.  They have more sailing than HI, but FL is pretty darn crowded in areas we like for our tastes - and they still have too many snakes.  HI is nice, but so far away from everything else and not all that many marinas comparatively.

[FaithManor]

Hubby has looked into the ice sailing that goes on... and he's enjoyed his time on Lake Ontario, but I'm pretty sure he's dreaming of Bali Hai (from South Pacific) or a reasonably similar equivalent with tons of marinas all around and endless sailing possibilities.

 

In a pinch, FL could work.  We lived there before.  They have more sailing than HI, but FL is pretty darn crowded in areas we like for our tastes - and they still have too many snakes.  HI is nice, but so far away from everything else and not all that many marinas comparatively.

US Virgin Islands?

 

Guyana

 

Malta has a high percentage of people who are reasonably comfortable speaking in English.

 

I know. Let's find an island, buy it, and you guys can sail all you want, and we'll hang in the bungalows on the beach.  :biggrinjester:

[creekland]

US Virgin Islands?

 

Guyana

 

Malta has a high percentage of people who are reasonably comfortable speaking in English.

 

I know. Let's find an island, buy it, and you guys can sail all you want, and we'll hang in the bungalows on the beach.  :biggrinjester:

 

Works for me!  I'll bring the ponies for a nice ride along the beach!

 

USVI were among the top contenders on our list (as were BVI), but then a certain couple of hurricanes came along.   :cursing:

 

I haven't looked at Guyana... will have to google it tomorrow sometime.  I hadn't looked at Malta either, but HCOL comes to mind thinking about it - could be wrong.

[Rosie_0801]

Australia certainly has its fair share of snakes which is in the negative column.  New Zealand and Hawaii do not.  ;)  (Apparently New Zealand can get sea snakes, but that's a bit different than the living on the land varieties.)

 

I'm not sure I'm as worried about crocs, sharks, or spiders TBH.  I just don't like snakes.

 

I saw a snake last week! I hadn't seen one since I was about 10.

 

The snakes aren't why you don't want to move here. You don't want to move here because of the cost of living.

[creekland]

I saw a snake last week! I hadn't seen one since I was about 10.

 

The snakes aren't why you don't want to move here. You don't want to move here because of the cost of living.

 

I've heard rumors (esp from Sadie's posts).   :crying:   I feel for y'all.

[Laura Corin]

While you are checking, look into whether there are restrictions on the length of house rental agreements with different kinds of visa in different locations.

[Bootsie]

Works for me!  I'll bring the ponies for a nice ride along the beach!

 

USVI were among the top contenders on our list (as were BVI), but then a certain couple of hurricanes came along.   :cursing:

 

I haven't looked at Guyana... will have to google it tomorrow sometime.  I hadn't looked at Malta either, but HCOL comes to mind thinking about it - could be wrong.

Malta has a low COL compared to most places in Europe.  

[Twolittleboys]

I don't know whether Malta is green enough for you though? You might also consider some of the Spanish islands (depending on what is going on with Spain) - I think there are a lot of expatriates there so you could probably find a place with enough English speakers.

 

As far as Alabama is concerned, it does stay warmish most of the year. You might still want to do a bit of traveling after relocating so if you moved e.g. to Alabama you could do a bit of travelling during winter months. It is close to water (and lots of lakes etc.) and hilly and green. It gets quite humid of course in the summer but as you were thinking of the Caribbean that might not bother you.

[Rosie_0801]

I know it is off topic, but I can't help but post this article. :D

 

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/funnel-web-spiders-beautiful-molecules-show-promise-for-treating-epilepsy-stroke-20171021-gz5k2i.html

[creekland]

I don't know whether Malta is green enough for you though? You might also consider some of the Spanish islands (depending on what is going on with Spain) - I think there are a lot of expatriates there so you could probably find a place with enough English speakers.

 

As far as Alabama is concerned, it does stay warmish most of the year. You might still want to do a bit of traveling after relocating so if you moved e.g. to Alabama you could do a bit of travelling during winter months. It is close to water (and lots of lakes etc.) and hilly and green. It gets quite humid of course in the summer but as you were thinking of the Caribbean that might not bother you.

 

Yeah, I've never been to Malta, but I envision it being like Greece and Greek Islands are definitely too desert for us - not to mention the language.

 

We've been to Alabama in Feb (and other trips) to check it out and it's too cold for us there.  Even St Pete, FL (a place we like) can get colder than we like in winter, but it beats northern FL and similar.

 

We don't really plan on staying in "whatever" place for the summer when it's hot.  That's when we'd be traveling north.  It's just the opposite of what we do now with traveling south in the winter.  How much time we'd spend where will depend upon the country (what Laura is talking about).  Some counties have restrictions.  Others merely want money.

 

Take a look at this (countries listed at the bottom).  Europe is expensive.  Several other countries - not so much.

 

https://corpocrat.com/2016/12/22/30-countries-for-buying-citizenship-through-investment/

 

I know it is off topic, but I can't help but post this article. :D

 

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/funnel-web-spiders-beautiful-molecules-show-promise-for-treating-epilepsy-stroke-20171021-gz5k2i.html

 

I knew there was a reason I liked spiders - even venomous ones.  Awesome discoveries!  I shall be able to use that in Bio classes with a project we do.  Thanks for posting!

[FaithManor]

Jamaica!

 

I have been there before. Love Ocho Rios and Montevideo Bay. Former British Colony so English speaking and just a couple of hours by plane from Miami.

[Twolittleboys]

Yes, Alabama can get quite chilly in the winter but it is fairly short. Still, if you are planning to travel in the summer to avoid heat/humidity it doesn't make sense to travel in the winter as well.

 

Those visa are expensive! Yikes. I have been thinking of splitting my time between different places once the kids are older (e.g. spend part of the winter in Spain, early summer in England, etc.). Luckily, I wouldn't have to worry about a visa for Europe (well, not for the most part anyway).

 

But given your parameters: green, warm climate, English speaking, not too far from the US - it does look like you are pretty much stuck with the Caribbean?

[FaithManor]

Hmmmm seriously look at St. Kitts now. Malta also is very attractive to us.