Am I a complete weirdo for contemplating moving to America?

I absolutely do not get the appeal of a big house to rattle around in and a pool with tiny kids to stress over. Family, friends and community are much more valuable.

To my knowledge you cannot claim medicaid unless a greencard holder and that takes many years to achieve.

I have been in the greencard process alone for 3 years, it's not fast.

A point of order about the (appalling, awful, tragic) Sandy Hook shooting: Adam Lanza’s mother bought him the guns. He didn’t just go and buy them. It wasn’t like Uvalde where thanks to Texas law the shooter was able to buy them as soon as he turned 18.

the data on gun violence is clear though: New England is the safest part of the US and it’s not even close.

@Frinkleg - I had a similar decision about 10 - 15 years ago

Decided not. It was East coast short commutable to NYC but nice area.

In the end - the higher salary didn't cover as much as we thought. Also - if there indefinitely and DC wanted to come to UK to university - full overseas fees to be paid ( or indeed big fees in US) - I didn't want to permanently relocate. Nor did I want transatlantic trips to visit DC or other family.

I think in the end it was a gut feeling , I like to visit the US , I love many places I know there - I don't want to live there and a bigger house doesn't cut the mustard ( for me. ) I can justify all ways round with politics or gun laws or whatever - it was a gut feeling - I prefer the UK with a smaller house. That would not be everyone's choice. It was ours. If your feeling is do it - then do it. Just a thought from one who thought about it.

It's always obvious when someone has experience of living in the US and when they don't in one of these threads...

Yes politics here are nuts at the moment, however if it's the US vs the UK right now I choose to scream into the void. Being a union pilot in Connecticut is absolutely, 100% nothing like some of the scenarios people are outlining. If it's one of the majors like United that is very well compensated with excellent benefits but beware that it's for a reason. It is a VERY stressful job especially with the current FAA and ATC situation. However unlike some jobs, while the schedule is difficult it is rigidly adhered to. Gun violence in New England is nothing like people imagine (very low) and you really don't need to live in a gated enclave as most of the housing is older before neighbourhoods like that were built. You will pay massive property taxes though, and a state income tax. Those lovely services and schools do not come cheaply. Generally speaking 2x your UK income in US$ is as close to equivalent as you can estimate, so 3x, while nice, is not quite as huge as you imagine. So do keep that in mind. However in most of CT you will have a very nice quality of life. It will be practically twee in a lot of the suburbs; your Nextdoor will be endless arguments about petty local natters and, lord save you, drama from the town pickleball court.

My main decider would be the employment contract as I can't fathom moving to a country based off a job if potentially giving up so many employment rights. I'd want to ensure similar levels of benefits and job protection which I understand are less common in US.
What's the point in a larger house and more money if you don't really get to enjoy it because you only have 10days off a year and can be let go much more easily and with less notice/protection?

(Are you also planning on having children and is paternity leave a factor for you? And other related childcare costs?)

Things to consider if it's a long term move -
What is the situation visa wise? Will you be dependant on your husbands visa? What happens if you were to split up? Would you be turfed out? What about the kids visas? Can they go to college there and have you factored in college fees? Would they have to leave when they're no longer dependents, despite having grown up in the states?

Er….the Sandy Hook school shooting happened in Connecticut. Not sure their gun laws are restrictive enough.

I wouldn't go, solely due to the worry every day of my children being gunned down in school.

Out of all the states on offer, Connecticut is one of the better options in your situation.

Deciding factors if it were me would be: how will it impact my children? Your oldest would be starting secondary school in a couple of years. Can you work if you want / need to? How does the political situation impact us?

Do not be seduced by a bigger house. There are all sorts of unexpected costs, even with good health insurance. And there are fewer employment protections and less generous annual leave arrangements generally than UK. Would you need to spend all your holiday entitlement visiting family back in the UK?

The figures may be reputable individually, but that doesn't mean that they can be compared to each other.

It's like comparing vehicle efficiencies, with one vehicle measured in MPG and the other in km/L, testing one of them at motorway speeds and the other in start-stop traffic. Such figures may be perfectly accurate individually (unless it's a VW) but they're not comparable.

I don't know how I can make it any plainer: The two countries measure poverty differently. The UK has a fairly simple measure: household income below 60% of the median (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096). The US has 48 thresholds it uses,and the link to them is broken at the moment - thanks to the Trump-Epstein shutdown (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html)

You cannot compare two different measures, you have to be measuring the same thing.

I posted the figures that expert organisations across the board accept as true, and they all match up. 31% for the UK and 16% for the US.

I even said that I did not include the OECD figures because they were wildly different from the accepted ones.

So I don't know what you're talking about. I did the exact opposite of what you say I did.

If you aren't going to make the effort to check that your figures are actually comparable to each other, then don't make the claim in the first place.

Yes, of course, but given that I'm not a researcher or going to go into it at that level, I take the figures that all those reputable organisations I mention above accept as true. The expert consensus is that the child poverty rate is 31% in the UK and 16% in the US.

You can't compare figures from two completely different sources, no matter how reputable each source is when taken individually. They will use different definitions and have different methodologies.

Of course you can take figures from Google. It's not Google themselves making the figures, is it, it's respectable sources - assuming you choose to quote from respectable sources, which I do. Here is what I posted on another thread:

On the contrary, the OECD data is the only set that comes up with those figures. I read many sources in order to quote the figures that I did.

Action for Children UK is very firm that 31% of UK children live in poverty.
https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/blog/where-is-child-poverty-increasing-in-the-uk/

The following respectable groups agree that the figure is 31%: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the UK government, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and more. I am not sure why the OECD data is so different.

The BBC reports the 31% figure as being correct: So does the Guardian. The figure is widely accepted - just Google it.

Media sample:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g03ykxeko

The US:
United Way says 12% https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/child-poverty-in-america/

Gov census says 16.3% https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/12/poverty-rate-varies-by-age-groups.html

Children International agrees with the 16.3%: https://www.children.org/global-poverty/global-poverty-facts/facts-about-poverty-in-usa

Annie Casey Foundation says 16%: https://www.aecf.org/topics/child-poverty

I discounted the OEDC data when I saw how wildly different it was from all the other sources on UK and US child-poverty rates, and that no other sources seem to tally with it. It seems pretty accepted that the UK rate is 31% and the US rate is 16% approx. I did wonder if the OECD had an agenda, considering how no other sources seem to replicate its data.

You can't just take a couple of figures from Google and compare them. How does each country measure child poverty? How is it defined?

Here is a (dated) example of statistics that can be compared:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/11/child-poverty-statistics-uk-countries

Note how the US was worse than the UK in four out of the five measures.

Another study says 12.4% of British children vs 21.2% of American children.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264424/child-poverty-in-oecd-countries/

Another one has the US at 14.0 and the UK at 12.7
www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/poverty-rate.html

Yes, hopefully the GOP will stop behaving like a cartel in thrall to their boss.

Just check the legal situation re kids if after a couple of years you want to come 'home' to the UK and he doesn't.

Just check the legal situation re kids if after a couple of years you want to come 'home' to the UK and he doesn't.

The US child poverty rate is about 16%, compared with 31% of UK children. Google it.

They're afraid that if they have free public healthcare, the quality will drop off a cliff. You might have to pay for healthcare in the US - although most get it heavily subsidised by their employer - but the actual care itself is absolutely fantastic, and they're loathe to potentially give that up. And they read the scare stories about the NHS.

This is absolutely true. I was thinking of moving back to the UK, and I looked into what private healthcare covers and the cost. I was very surprised to learn that so many things aren't covered by UK private insurance. You can't replace US private health insurance with it at all.

No. You can’t compare UK private health insurance to USA. UK private health system is nowhere near as comprehensive.

It Is appropriate to compare NHS to USA private health insurance as these are the dominate health systems for the population in their respective countries. Decades ago I thought our NHS health system was much superior. I don’t anymore, at least not for those in the USA who have decent private health insurance.

I had two of my DCs on Medicaid and it paid for everything - prenatal care, hospital care and all services for me and babies, and all follow up visits for me and babies. When I say 'hospital care and services' I include the services of my obstetrician in one case and midwife in the other, the anesthesiologists, the neonatal pediatrician and neonatal care, and all the supplies that came with the private rooms with ensuite that I occupied. I received exactly the same level of care I had received with my other pregnancies and deliveries that were paid for by private health insurance, in the same hospital, and by the same doctor/ midwife.

I have a friend whose entire breast cancer treatment was paid for by Medicaid - her initial mammogram, her ultrasound and biopsy, all her initial blood tests and lab work throughout treatment, an MRI, injection of dye, lumpectomy, transport to and home from hospital on her lumpectomy surgery day and her port insertion procedure (and later removal), and to and from all her chemo appointments (I was able to drive her for these so she didn't use that free transport). All of her chemo drugs were covered, including a more expensive alternative to the initial drug as she had an adverse reaction to it. She had the services of a nurse navigator who dealt with all coverage matters and made all her appointments for her, and was available constantly for any questions she had. A dietician was also available, completely free of charge. These servics were available throughout her whole post chemo treatment too - follow up mammograms for four years now, estrogen inhibiting medication, and free bras with silicone inserts, covered every year, to equalise the size of her boobs, from a specialist bra shop.

Hopefully the GOP will get their asses handed to them on a plate at the 2026 midterms and funding can then be restored.

This with bells on.