Menu

posts

Work as Life. And Where Was Life? American Employment: When Pauses Are Not Provided

Work as Life. And Where Was Life? American Employment: When Pauses Are Not Provided

Author: Nura Aslan

Inspired by the documentary film “They Stole My American Dream”

Introduction


For most Americans, work is not just a way to earn a living, but life itself. In a country where work weeks often stretch to 40-50 hours or more, and rest is hardly provided, work becomes an integral part of personal identity. But what happens when rest remains only a rare moment? How does this affect health, relationships, and personal happiness?


We live in a world where success is measured by labor, and rest is often perceived as a weakness. In the USA, for example, many women who have just become mothers are forced to return to work just a few weeks later, without having time to recover. But is such a life truly successful, or is it just a path to burnout?


This article is dedicated to the culture of “constant employment” in the USA, where work becomes the main meaning of life. We will compare this model with approaches in other countries, such as Russia and Europe, and explore how possible a balance between work and rest truly is. Can a person find this balance, or will their entire life turn into an endless pursuit of a career?


What are the conditions for people, how many hours do people work in the USA


In the USA, the work culture is known for its focus on high employment. The average American works more than 40 hours a week. For many workers, this is not the limit, and actual working hours often significantly exceed the established minimum. The workday usually starts early and ends late, leaving little time for rest or personal life.


At the same time, the American labor system is characterized by limited vacation rights. On average, workers can expect 5-10 days of paid vacation per year, which is significantly less than in other countries where it is a guaranteed right for all employees. In some European countries, for example, Germany or France, vacation amounts to at least 4-6 weeks a year, which contributes to a better work-life balance.


Another feature of American work culture is how quickly women return to work after childbirth. Unlike most European countries, where extended maternity leave is the standard, such a practice is not supported at the state level in the USA. Women are generally forced to return to work soon after having a child to avoid losing their position and income.


Thus, the work culture in the USA is heavily oriented towards productivity and career achievements, which in turn impacts the personal time and health of workers.


Comparison with Russia, Europe, Japan, and China: Different Approaches to Work-Life Balance


Let’s examine how this issue is addressed in the USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, and China.

USA

In the USA, the prevailing belief is that work is the primary path to success, leading to long working hours. Despite minimal paid vacation, Americans often work more than 50 hours a week. In large cities and competitive fields, overtime has become the norm. Workers worry that if they are not constantly in motion, they might lose their position. This creates tension and burnout, negatively impacting health and personal life.


Russia


In Russia, labor legislation offers more favorable conditions for workers. The standard workweek is 40 hours, and the duration of vacation is at least 28 working days per year. Additionally, Russia has implemented state support programs for families, such as maternity capital, which helps families with children. Longer maternity leaves for women are also provided. In recent years, employers have become more flexible, offering remote work and opportunities for a better work-life balance.


Europe


In European countries such as Germany, France, and Spain, workers are entitled to longer vacations — a minimum of 4-6 weeks per year. This allows people to rest and recharge, dedicating time to family and personal interests. In Sweden and Norway, additional measures have been developed to support mothers, including extended paid maternity leave and flexible conditions for returning to work. European countries actively support policies aimed at improving working conditions for women and promoting harmony between work and personal life.


Japan


In Japan, work culture is characterized by strict norms and high discipline. The workweek here often exceeds 50 hours, and overtime is considered normal. Japanese people often do not take vacation, even when necessary, due to pressure from employers and a society where duty to work comes first. This leads to serious health consequences, including mental health problems and even deaths from overwork, known as “karoshi.” The emotional burden and constant stress have a devastating impact on Japanese society, and the problem of “karoshi” remains one of the most acute.


China


In China, work culture is also oriented towards strict discipline and long working hours. The standard workweek is 40 hours, but in some sectors, due to high competition and economic pressure, it can extend to 50 hours or more. Many Chinese workers do not have opportunities for rest and relaxation, leading to chronic stress. The psychological pressure on workers, especially in large cities, is growing, causing anxiety disorders and depression.

Below is a diagram comparing the number of vacation days and the average number of working hours in the USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, and China.

 

 


Comparison of Two Countries: The Netherlands and the USA


Let’s compare two countries that approach the issue of working conditions from completely different perspectives in their cultural and social policies. The Netherlands and the USA are examples of two economically developed countries with high living standards, but with significantly different approaches to working hours, working conditions, and personal life.


Working Hours:
· In the Netherlands, the average working week is 27 hours, significantly lower than in the USA. This is the result of high flexibility in working time and a culture oriented towards work-life balance.
· In the USA, the standard working week is 40 hours, and in many industries, working hours can reach 50 hours per week. This intense work culture can cause burnout and increased stress.


Happiness Index (World Happiness Report 2024):
· The Netherlands ranks 5th in the world happiness ranking, with a happiness index of 7 (on a scale from 1 to 10). This high score is explained by the accessibility of social services, quality healthcare, and ample rest. Despite its high happiness index, the Netherlands is in fifth place due to other factors such as the level of social support and political stability, which strongly influence the overall happiness of the population.
· The USA ranks 15th with a happiness index of 6.5. Although the happiness level in the USA is also quite high, the more intense work culture, social inequality, and political instability lower the overall level of happiness, despite high income and opportunities.


Life Expectancy:
· In the Netherlands, the average life expectancy is 82.5 years. This is linked to a high level of healthcare, lower stress levels, and quality social support.
· In the USA, the average life expectancy is 79.5 years, lower than in the Netherlands. Although medical technologies in the USA are advanced, high work-related stress and lack of rest negatively impact citizens’ health.


Paid Vacation:
· In the Netherlands, workers are entitled to 4-6 weeks of paid vacation per year, which promotes better recovery and stress reduction.
· In the USA, the average vacation is only 10 days per year, which is significantly less and limits time for rest and recovery.


Salary:
· In the Netherlands, the average salary is about $52,000 per year. Despite fewer working hours, the income level in the Netherlands is quite competitive, and the shorter work week helps maintain a healthy work-life balance.
· In the USA, the average salary is $58,000 per year. However, the higher income compensates for the additional working hours and stress, which can also affect the overall level of life satisfaction.

 


Thus, differences in working hours and social policy play a key role in determining the overall level of well-being in these countries.


Maximum Employment as a Culture in the USA


In the USA, high employment and the absence of pauses are not just a trend, but practically a cultural standard embedded in society. A system oriented towards workaholics glorifies career achievements as the main indicator of success. Working without breaks has become the norm, and success is measured by the amount of time a person spends on their career.


Social and Psychological Aspects


The American Dream: In the USA, there is an idealized notion of the “American Dream,” according to which success is achieved exclusively through hard work and the pursuit of career advancement. This belief is actively supported at all levels—from the education system to work culture. The prevailing opinion in society is that only constant activity and the pursuit of success can lead to financial independence and social stability. The logic is simple: if you don’t work constantly, you won’t achieve success.


Competition: Intense competition in the labor market, especially in large cities and highly competitive fields, pushes people into endless hours of work. People worry that if they don’t work without a break, their place will be taken by someone more capable, leading to losses not only in their career but also financially. This anxiety becomes the basis for career burnout and increased stress.


Psychological Pressure: In an environment where society actively values productivity, people begin to avoid rest, even when they are physically or emotionally exhausted. Workaholism is perceived as a sign of a strong and successful person, while rest and pauses are seen as weakness or a waste of time. This creates a vicious cycle: work becomes an end in itself, and health and personal life become secondary.


Below is a diagram comparing stress levels and illness rates among workers in the USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, and China.

 


Thus, the diagram demonstrates a clear relationship between stress levels, working conditions, and illness rates, highlighting the importance of a balanced approach to work and rest for improving worker health.


Examples of Real People Who Faced Workaholism and the Search for Balance


1. Arianna Huffington (USA, New York)
Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, is a striking example of how high employment and a culture of working without rest can negatively impact health. She openly spoke about her experience of “burnout” after collapsing from exhaustion and breaking her cheekbone in her pursuit of success and career achievements. This event became a turning point in her life, and she wrote the book “The Sleep Revolution,” in which she shares her experience and urges people to find a balance between work and rest.


2. James Rebhorn (USA, New York)
James Rebhorn, an actor who passed away in 2014, also experienced stress and burnout due to his professional life. Despite his heavy involvement in film and television, James realized the importance of paying attention to personal relationships and caring for his psycho-emotional state. This allowed him to get through difficult moments in his life, despite a serious illness.


3. Sheryl Sandberg (USA, Menlo Park, California)
Sheryl Sandberg, former COO of Facebook, began actively speaking about the importance of maintaining a work-life balance after the sudden death of her husband. In her book “Option B,” she shares her personal grief and experience overcoming adversity. Sheryl emphasizes how societal expectations and job demands can be draining and talks about the importance of rest and recovery, even in high-level positions.


4. Richard Branson (UK, London)
Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, acknowledges that success is not worth it if it comes at the expense of health. Despite his busy schedule, Branson actively supports a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise and hobbies. He often emphasizes that to achieve long-term success, it is important not only to work but also to find time for rest and personal interests.


These examples show that even successful and highly effective people face the consequences of workaholism. Despite their career achievements, they understood the importance of finding a work-life balance. The stories of Arianna Huffington, James Rebhorn, Sheryl Sandberg, and Richard Branson highlight that for long-term success and personal well-being, it is necessary to take care of one’s health and emotional state, as well as to set aside time for rest and recovery.


Changing Work Culture to Prevent Burnout


To avoid the negative consequences of workaholism, such as burnout, stress, and deteriorating health, it is necessary to reconsider not only individual approaches but also the overall work culture. It is important to understand that work is not the only component of life, and to maintain long-term well-being, it is essential to dedicate time to rest and personal life. In countries like Spain, Italy, and France, attention to rest combined with work culture helps avoid the negative effects of excessive employment.


Spain:
In Spain, there is the tradition of the siesta, a short rest after lunch, which helps avoid overload and regain strength during the day. This helps increase productivity and reduce stress levels. The siesta is not just a rest; it is part of a culture that emphasizes the importance of rest and recovery for effective work.

Italy:
In Italy, work culture is closely linked to family values and rest. Summer vacations, especially in August, become a time for recovery and maintaining family ties. Italy also actively supports a balance between working and personal hours, which helps people not only maintain high productivity but also preserve emotional health.

France:
France is known for its system supporting the 35-hour work week and long vacations, which contribute to recovery and stress reduction. The French approach emphasizes that work should be part of a balanced life, not its dominant element.


By studying the examples of these countries, we can see how a culture of rest and attention to work-life balance helps prevent burnout and maintain high levels of happiness and health among citizens. To avoid the negative consequences that lead to workaholism and stress, it is important to change approaches at all levels—from individual to governmental. Balance between work and rest must become part of the overall culture, because only in this way can we create long-term conditions for a happy and healthy life.


Conclusion


The purpose of this article is not to criticize the work culture in the USA, but to show how it affects the quality of life, level of happiness, and life expectancy. We are not trying to devalue success and achievements, but we aim to look at the reality that hides behind the endless race for career growth and material goods.


Life in the USA is indeed full of opportunities, but at the same time, it demands constant work and self-sacrifice. People often put their careers first, and in this process, they lose time for themselves—for rest, for family, for hobbies. In the end, many of us face the question: “What have I done for myself in my entire life?”


A work culture oriented towards intense labor, high expectations, and minimal vacations often leads to burnout and disappointment. Trying to achieve success in the professional sphere, we sometimes lose ourselves. Few people ponder what is more important—the endless struggle for success or time spent with loved ones and in the pursuit of personal happiness.


Unfortunately, in a culture where “work is success,” there is often no room left for life outside of work. And so you stand on the threshold of old age, realizing that you have lived almost all your time without pausing for true rest. What is this—success or a loss of life?


We must learn to find balance, to create a culture where not only work achievements are valued, but also time for oneself. Life is not only work; it is also the moments we dedicate to loved ones, our passions, and our inner world.

Links To Research

Freedom of Speech and Cancel Culture

Freedom of Speech and Cancel Culture

Author: Alexander Belogai, Screenwriter & Researcher

We live in a world where any word or action can very quickly become public. It takes just one post, joke, remark, or photo for thousands of people to start talking about someone. Many have heard about the highly publicized case involving Johnny Depp and his former wife Amber Heard. Their conflict played out not only in court but across social media, turning a personal story into a global public spectacle.

What once might have gone unnoticed or been discussed quietly within a small circle can now be brought into the spotlight with ease. In response to its own reaction, society demands explanations and justice. What matters is no longer only what actually happened, but how it was seen and interpreted by others.

Gradually, this gave rise to a phenomenon known as cancel culture. It is most often described as a way for society to respond to unacceptable behavior, such as violence or abuse of power — especially in cases where formal institutions have long failed or functioned poorly.

But if we look more closely, a question arises: why do some actions trigger immediate moral condemnation while others are barely noticed? Why, in some cases, does collective outrage allow for no nuance, while in others it seems not to activate at all?

Cancel culture rarely misjudges what constitutes a problem.

Far more often, it misjudges whom — and when — to punish for it.

 

Why Cancel Culture Works in the First Place

 

How People Were “Canceled” in the Past

The idea of public condemnation did not emerge today. People were excluded from society long before the internet.

 

In Ancient Greece, there was a practice known as Ostracism. It was used especially frequently around 500–450 BCE. Citizens would gather and vote using clay shards called ostraka. On them, they wrote the name of a person they considered dangerous to the state. Whoever received the most votes was exiled from the city for ten years.

 

Importantly, no crime had to be committed for this to happen. Ostracism was more of a preventive measure — a way to remove someone “just in case”. The person did not lose their property, citizenship, or legal status, and was not formally considered a criminal. They were simply excluded from public life.

 

A similar mechanism also existed in religion. The Old Testament describes an ancient Jewish ritual performed on a special day — Yom Kippur (Hebrew: יום כיפור — “Day of Atonement” or “Judgment Day”). It was believed that over the course of a year the people accumulated many sins, and in order to “cleanse” themselves, they symbolically transferred all their sins onto a single animal — a goat. A special ritual was performed over it, after which it was led into the desert and released there, effectively condemning it to death.

 

This goat was called the “scapegoat”. It became the one held responsible for everything at once, even though it had done nothing. In this way, society rid itself of guilt and anxiety by directing them toward a single chosen “culprit”. This is where the expression we still use today comes from, when someone is made to take the blame for collective problems.

 

In medieval Europe, public condemnation often took an even more visible form — the pillory. These were installed in market squares so that everyone could see the condemned person. The individual was locked into the structure and left in full view of the crowd. The punishment was not only about the formal sentence itself, but about the reaction of onlookers. People could throw rotten vegetables, stones, and dirt, shout insults, and even resort to physical violence. In some cases, such punishments ended in death.

 

Pillories were widespread in Western Europe — in France and England — beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, and were also used in the Russian Empire, including against penal labor convicts. It was a public spectacle in which the crowd itself played a central role.

 

Medieval Europe also had another form of exclusion — anathema, or excommunication from the Church. At that time, the Church was an integral part of everyday life, so such a punishment meant near-total exclusion from society. A person could not marry in the Church, could not be buried in a common cemetery, and in some cases even their children were denied baptism. This stripped not only the individual but also their family of a future within the community.

 

The key difference between all these examples and modern cancel culture is that in the past such punishments were official and regulated. They were backed by the state, the Church, or the community, and followed established rules.

 

Cancel Culture from a Psychological Perspective

 

When you look at how quickly and massively cancel culture takes over public space, it’s hard not to think of phenomena described in collective psychology. In such moments, a person reacts less as an individual and more as part of a group. Personal opinion dissolves into a shared emotional current, and the collective response turns into a single, powerful, and often harsh impulse.



Social media has made this process much faster and more intense. Their algorithms reward not calm reflection but engagement — and what spreads best is not doubt, but outrage. In this environment, moral positioning is increasingly expressed not through analysis, but through immediate action: a like, a repost, or an angry comment. This is where herd instinct kicks in — a mechanism that once helped humans survive by sticking together. When activated, a person unconsciously aligns with the behavior of the group, even if, alone, they would never have acted the same way.

 

Psychology has long shown that the same person behaves very differently alone than in a crowd. This is clearly demonstrated by well-known experiments:

 

In the experiment conducted by Solomon Asch, participants were given a simple task: choose the line that matched the length of a sample line. The correct answer was obvious. However, the other participants in the group (who were confederates) deliberately chose the wrong option. As a result, about 75% of participants agreed with the clearly incorrect answer at least once, simply to avoid going against the group. Without majority pressure, almost everyone answered correctly. The experiment showed that, for many people, being “like everyone else” matters more than being right.

 

In the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram, participants were instructed to “punish” another person with electric shocks for mistakes on a task. The shocks were fake, but the participants did not know that. When a man in a white lab coat calmly insisted that the experiment must continue, 65% of participants proceeded to the maximum voltage level, believing they were causing serious harm. The essence of the experiment was simple: in the presence of authority, people are willing to do things they themselves consider wrong.

 

The Stanford prison experiment demonstrated the power of roles and environment. Ordinary students were randomly assigned to be “guards” or “prisoners”. Within just a few days, the “guards” began humiliating the “prisoners”, and the experiment, originally planned to last two weeks, had to be stopped after only six days due to cruelty and psychological breakdowns. None of the participants had shown violent tendencies beforehand — the situation itself, along with the imposed roles, created the behavior.

 

Some people dislike comparisons between humans and animals, since humanity is a fundamentally different species, endowed with consciousness. Yet in other contexts, these same people readily explain human behavior through “instincts”, especially when discussing sexual violence. So it is worth honestly examining how group behavior functions more broadly — including in animals.

 

When suddenly frightened, a herd of deer or antelope can literally trample their own young or weaker members. Sometimes ants lose their pheromone trail and begin moving in circles, following one another endlessly — they can continue this for hours or even days, until they die from exhaustion. It is also worth mentioning the mass sheep deaths in Turkey in 2005: in one village, around 1,500 sheep were grazing unattended. For unknown reasons, one sheep fell off a cliff. Hundreds followed, one after another. In the end, about 400 sheep died; the rest survived only because they fell onto the bodies of those that had jumped before them. These are classic examples of herd behavior without any assessment of consequences.

 

In a crowd, responsibility becomes diluted. It feels as though “everyone is doing it”, and therefore you are not personally accountable. That is why a person who would never raise a hand alone may, in a group, begin shouting, insulting, or even literally throwing stones at someone. Participation in collective condemnation becomes a way of signaling: “I belong”, “I’m on the right side”.



And most often, one crucial element is missing from this collective logic — critical thinking. The ability to look in one direction, and then in the other. A crowd has neither the time nor the patience to consider that a situation may be more complex than it appears at first glance. Instead, what is rewarded is speed of reaction and alignment with the dominant momentum. The ability to doubt and analyze becomes not a virtue, but a suspicious deviation. In such moments, people often act not out of deep conviction in their own righteousness, but out of a subconscious fear of being excluded from the group.

 

At times like this, cancel culture can begin to resemble a kind of social psychosis. The collective decision feels absolutely correct and self-evident. Yet it is often built not on facts, but on cognitive distortions — persistent errors in thinking that make us see the world not as it is, but as it is convenient to see it here and now, as happened in the case of Johnny Depp. At first, Depp was publicly condemned, and film studios cut ties with him. Later, when it emerged that Amber Heard had defamed him, public outrage shifted toward her instead. Emotions proved more powerful than facts, and the act of punishment became more important than understanding the situation itself.



A crowd does not seek truth — it seeks release, and finds it in the figure of a “culprit” onto whom collective anger can be directed. And the more people become involved in this process, the harder it is to stop and ask a simple but essential question: what if the reality is more complicated?



This does not mean that collective reaction is always wrong or unjust. Sometimes it truly helps draw attention to serious problems.

 

When Cancel Culture Actually Works

 

One of the most well-known examples is the story of Harvey Weinstein. He was one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood. The careers of actresses, directors, and screenwriters often depended on his decisions. Many women later said that he abused his power: coercing them into sexual acts, threatening to destroy their careers if they refused, and acting as though he would never face consequences. People in the industry knew about it, but almost no one spoke openly — the price was too high.

 

The situation changed when several women decided to share their stories publicly. Other survivors, journalists, and members of the public supported them. The pressure became so intense that it was no longer possible to ignore what had happened. Investigations and trials followed, and Weinstein ultimately received a real prison sentence. In this case, cancel culture did not replace justice — it forced the justice system to finally do its job.

 

A similar situation unfolded around P. Diddy, one of the most influential figures in the American music industry. He was a rapper, producer, and businessman whose network shaped the careers of dozens of artists. His private parties were seen as part of the elite world of show business, attracting musicians, models, and celebrities.

 

Over time, allegations began to surface that violence, coercion, humiliation, and abuse of power had taken place at these events. People from within his circle described an atmosphere of permissiveness combined with strict control and fear of consequences for refusing to participate or speaking out. For a long time, these accounts were dismissed as rumors — his influence was simply too great.

 

When the accusations became public and supporting evidence emerged, the situation shifted. Public pressure forced the industry and law enforcement to respond. In the end, P. Diddy was arrested and also ended up in prison. As in Weinstein’s case, cancel culture served as the initial catalyst that triggered formal investigations.

 

In cases like these, cancel culture works because it is directed not at a random mistake or an ill-phrased comment, but at systemic violence and abuse of power. It gives a voice to those who were previously unheard and breaks the cycle of silence that allowed the powerful to act with impunity for years.

 

It is important to clarify the difference between the cases described above and those that will be discussed later in this article. In the cases of Weinstein and P. Diddy, the issue involved actions that caused real physical harm to others and remained unpunished for a long time. But the same mechanism begins to fail when it is applied indiscriminately to entirely different situations — when systemic violence and old statements for which a person has already taken responsibility are met with the same level of severity. In those moments, the line between protecting society and carrying out a public execution begins to blur.

 

When Cancel Culture Begins to Cause Harm

 

In some situations, cancel culture targets people whose actions are disproportionate to the punishment that follows. More precisely, society does not always take context and time into account.

 

One of the most telling examples is Kevin Hart. In 2018, he was invited to host the Academy Awards ceremony. Almost immediately afterward, his old tweets — more than ten years old — began circulating widely on social media. In them, Hart had made homophobic jokes that are rightly considered unacceptable today.

 

What is important, however, is that those statements had been made long before the controversy. Hart had already apologized for them in the past and repeatedly said that he no longer thought or joked that way. Nevertheless, the collective reaction was unequivocal: if you once said it, that alone is enough. Under public pressure, Hart stepped down from hosting. He was not accused of crimes or violence — he was punished for past words, without regard for who he had become since then.

 

A similar situation happened to James Gunn, the director of Guardians of the Galaxy. In 2018, old tweets containing extremely inappropriate and shocking jokes resurfaced online. These posts had been written many years earlier, during a period Gunn himself later described as the most shameful stage of his life. He had deleted them before the scandal and openly acknowledged that his behavior at the time was wrong. Despite this, The Walt Disney Company immediately fired him, without publicly examining the situation or assessing the changes he had undergone. The decision was made quickly, under the pressure of public reaction. Only later, after support from actors and colleagues, was Gunn rehired — effectively acknowledging that the initial decision had been rushed.

 

Both stories highlight a broader problem within cancel culture: it struggles with boundaries of responsibility. In this logic, society stops asking essential questions — what exactly was done, who suffered real harm, whether there was an attempt to make amends, and what consequences are proportionate to the situation.

 

It is at this point that harm begins. A system without distinctions or nuance inevitably becomes dangerous. Today it affects public figures; tomorrow, ordinary people. And then cancellation ceases to be a way of protecting society and increasingly turns into a mechanism sustained by fear of being next.

 

The point of the Hart and Gunn stories is about when cancel culture chose to target their statements, and here it’s important to state the obvious. Discrimination, homophobia, or violence are not “just words” undeserving of criticism. Society has rightly become stricter toward statements that demean people based on sexual orientation, gender, race, or age, and even more so toward any form of child exploitation or abuse. These are real issues—they cannot be trivialized—and the public can confidently mark where the line of acceptability lies. Does that mean that everything changes once someone crosses that line?

Cognitive Distortions of Emigrants: The Illusion of Change as a Form of Self-Deception

Cognitive Distortions of Emigrants: The Illusion of Change as a Form of Self-Deception

Author: Nura Aslan

Inspired by the documentary film “They Stole My American Dream”

Introduction


When a person moves to another country, they rarely take only a suitcase. They also bring their old mindset—attitudes, habits, expectations, fears. And here’s what happens: life abroad turns out to be difficult, alien, expensive. But instead of admitting this, the person begins to defend their choice at any cost: devaluing the country they left and idealizing the one they arrived in. “It was hell in Russia. America is paradise. I just didn’t adapt right away.”


It sounds logical. Only it’s not true. This is self-deception, caused by cognitive distortions. That is—false perception patterns that prevent seeing things as they are. This article is not about where it is “better to live.” It is about why those who have left often cannot honestly assess what is happening to them after the move. And why, instead of a sober comparison, they fall into extremes, where one country becomes an enemy and the other an unattainable ideal.

 


Cognitive Distortion #1: Comparing Income Without Accounting for Expenses


One of the most persistent distortions among those who have emigrated is comparing salaries “by hearsay” or “on paper” before taxes. 


You hear: “He gets $8,000 a month in America,” and you automatically think: that means he lives many times better than me. In reality, it’s more complicated.


What is usually not taken into account in the USA:
– Taxes: 20 to 40% depending on the state
– Health insurance: $400–600 per month
– Rent: 50–70% of income, especially in cities
– Car: loan, insurance, gas, impossible to do without one
– Daily expenses: kindergarten, food, communication, internet, utilities—everything is higher than expected
In the end, from a “high” salary, a maximum of $700 may remain.

What is often not taken into account in Russia:
– Tax: 13-15%
– Housing: not everyone owns their own, but rent in the regions is significantly cheaper
– Healthcare: free or almost free
– Car maintenance and gas: several times cheaper
– Utilities: noticeably lower
– Registering as a sole proprietor or self-employed: easier
– Dentistry: 5–10 times cheaper for the same quality


But almost none of this is mentioned. Because it doesn’t fit the image: “I escaped from hell, I found the light.”
Admitting that you left not out of horror, but out of irritation, is painful. Admitting that there was something accessible and normal back home is scary. And that’s not all. Even if the income is objectively higher—almost no one asks themselves the question: At what cost is it achieved? A person in the USA might earn $6,000, but work 60–70 hours a week, without weekends or vacation. You work 40 hours, with a regular schedule and time for life.
Who lives better?

Q&A


Question: Why does the impression arise that everything abroad is more profitable?
Answer: Because they only compare nominal income, ignoring the real cost of life and labor. Without accounting for taxes.


Question: Why don’t people talk about this?
Answer: Because it’s easier to maintain the illusion of “I did everything right” than to admit that the choice turned out to be more complicated than it seemed at the start.


Abroad, you can earn more—and at the same time live worse. And as long as you compare only numbers, and not life—you are in a trap.

 


Cognitive Distortion #2: The Mindset “The State Owes Me”


Many people who leave Russia continue to think in a Soviet way. Even if they consider themselves modern, liberal, and adapted. They remained communists in their minds and believe that the state owed them something. Their consciousness remained communist, but the reality became capitalist, yet other capitalist countries
do not have this complex at all—that the country owes them something. This is an invisible but very persistent mindset.


In Russia, this is deeply ingrained—”medicine should be free,” “education must be accessible,” “the state should support you in difficult times.” A person may criticize the authorities, hate the system, but still expect help from it.
And so they move to a country where the rules are different. In the USA, no one owes you anything. Here, everything is by contract, by law, by price. There are no free clinics, no cheap universities, no familiar “social package.” Every help is a service, every guarantee is a paid option.


And then an internal failure occurs. The new world is perceived as hostile. Because it does not provide what is “due by default” in Russia. And the person begins to feel irritation: what am I even paying such taxes for, if even finding a doctor is a whole quest?


Another important detail that is often ignored when admiring an “honest and fair system” are the episodes that do not fit the ideal. In the mass consciousness, the American police are the epitome of incorruptibility. But reality is more complex. Even in the USA, scandals related to police bribery, abuse of power, and corruption occur—albeit not on the same scale as in countries with vulnerable institutions. This is especially evident in certain states and situations where control is weaker. This does not mean the entire system is rotten. But it’s an important reminder: no state is perfect. Even where “everything is according to the law,” there are exceptions, and closing your eyes to them means falling into the trap of illusions again.


If you continue to think that “everything works there” and “everything is broken here,” you are again not seeing the nuances. And that means you are not adapting again. Because adaptation begins with a sober look, not with idealization.


This is not a criticism of the USA. It’s simply a mismatch between expectations and reality. Instead of admitting: “I moved to capitalism, where everything is different—where medicine, bureaucracy, social support work differently than I’m used to,”—a person faces an internal conflict. They continue to idealize the new country, even justifying the outright inconveniences and difficulties they encounter in daily life. But at the same time, they easily and with obvious irritation begin to disparage the country they left, without making allowances for context, realities, or their own contribution to the past. This is not how the economy works. This is how thinking works.


Q&A


Question: Why does the feeling arise that everything abroad is harsh and soulless?
Answer: Because you expect care that is not provided here. It’s not harsh here—it’s just different.


Question: Why don’t people in other countries complain about the state as much as in Russia?
Answer: Because they never expected everything from it. They were taught from childhood that no one is obliged to save you.


The Soviet programming is not an ideology. It’s a set of expectations with which it is impossible to adapt in a world built on individual responsibility. As long as you wait for someone to come and decide—you are in conflict with reality. And that means no country will seem good to you as long as the old coordinate system is in your head.

 


Cognitive Distortion #3: The Illusion of Someone Else’s Success and Unequal Comparison

 

After moving, a person inevitably starts looking at those who have already “settled down”: relocator bloggers, IT specialists from San Francisco, wealthy families in Miami. Visually, everything looks brilliant: salaries, villas, convertibles, eternal smiles in front of palm trees. From this, the conclusion is born: “If they succeeded, I should succeed too.” But this conclusion hides several traps.

What remains behind the scenes of someone else’s success:
– Start-up capital or high income back home that allowed for a stress-free move.
– A profession valued globally (IT, finance, medicine), not just locally.
– A green card, work visa, or citizenship by descent—providing rights and benefits.
– Social connections that help find housing, work, clients.
– Family or partner investments covering basic expenses in the initial stages.


When you look at someone else’s success without these initial conditions, a false sense of inferiority arises. In reality, people with different starting points are being compared, but the conclusion is drawn as if everyone had the same opportunities.


How the illusion is reinforced:
– Social media shows only the “showcase”—cars, travels, receipts.
– Bloggers emphasize the positives of emigration but rarely talk about debt, overwork, and stress.
– Success stories become content: “Leave and get rich,” “America is the land of opportunity.”

It’s surprising how much irritation can be caused by anything even remotely connected to Russia. Even if it’s not propaganda, not politics, not nostalgia—just a cultural detail.


One such example is the reaction to a “Gagarin party” in America. Instead of a smile—tension. Instead of interest—irritation. As if the very fact that someone remembers Gagarin with pride threatens the new self-image.
This is no longer a political argument. It’s an emotional block: “don’t you dare praise the place we left.” Any positivity about Russia causes internal conflict—because it destroys the version of history in which the move was the only correct and ultimately right step.


When a person builds their new identity on the denial of the past, any reminder of that past is perceived as a challenge. Even if it’s just a name, just a symbol, just a holiday.


Q&A


Question: Why does someone else’s success abroad look easier than success at home?
Answer: Because they show the result, not the entire journey with visas, debts, night jobs, and stress.


Question: How can you tell if the picture of someone else’s life is real?
Answer: Ask yourself if you know the person’s starting resources—profession, capital, labor market rights, family support. Without this data, comparison is meaningless.


Comparing yourself to those who moved under completely different conditions is an illusion. Any “migrant success” needs to be divided by three: by start-up capital, by professional advantages, and by support from their network. Until you do this, someone else’s Instagram will seem like proof of your “failure,” when in reality they are two different equations with different initial data.

 


Cognitive Distortion #4: The Illusion of the Dream Country


Many people perceive emigration as a ticket to an ideal world. Especially when it comes to America. The USA in the mass consciousness is a brand. A land of milk and honey. It’s beautiful, rich, sunny. This image has been created for decades: by Hollywood films, bloggers, advertising, stories of successful emigrants.


That’s why not just an expectation, but an illusion forms in the head: just leave—and everything will be fine. The problems will stay where you used to live. And abroad, a new, adult, “normal” life awaits you.


But in reality, you don’t end up in paradise. You end up in a different system. With its own pros, but also its own cons. A system where everything costs a lot. Where every step is a responsibility. Where insurance is not a privilege, but a necessity. Where mistakes are costly, and loneliness is a common state.


One of the favorite arguments: in America, supposedly, even billionaires can calmly walk the streets without security—such a free and safe country.


Except in reality, it’s a beautiful facade, nothing more. Sergey Brin might not flaunt his security, but he has it—just in the shadows. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is openly accompanied by security, with millions budgeted just for safety.


The freedom they advertise is not about the absence of threats. It’s about a carefully constructed control system, where security exists but shouldn’t spoil the picture. So that people feel the “atmosphere of democracy.”


Therefore, those who sincerely believe that moving to the USA will give them a sense of total security and freedom sooner or later face reality: everything here costs money, even illusions. And freedom is not a gift, but a paid option, not available to everyone.


And here the internal conflict begins. The illusion does not match reality. But admitting this means admitting that you expected something else. And that hits the ego. So the person does not abandon the illusion. They start defending it. They continue to say that “everything is better there.” Even if it has become worse.


This is how the mechanism starts: devalue the country you left, and idealize the one you came to. Even if you are not happy in it. Even if every month you barely scrape together the rent. Even if there are no friends nearby. Even if you don’t feel at home.


Q&A


Question: Why is America perceived as a dream country, even when it’s hard to live there?
Answer: Because the myth is fixed in the mind, and disappointment in the myth requires inner strength to admit a mistake.


Question: Why do people continue to praise a country where they are struggling?
Answer: Because they are afraid to admit that they expected something different. Then they would have to admit that the problem is not with the country, but with themselves.


The illusion of a new country is a shield. It protects against disappointment, shame, and the fear of being wrong. But this shield prevents seeing reality. And as long as you hold it—you are not in a country, but in a fairy tale that stopped working long ago.

 


Cognitive Distortion #5: How and Why Migrants Hide the Reasons for Returning Home

 

We have analyzed dozens of interviews, videos, and posts from emigrants who returned home. And here’s what’s interesting: almost everyone explains their return with something soft and personal. They say — “I couldn’t get used to it,” “the culture there is alien,” “I had no friends,” “my heart wasn’t in it,” “the mentality wasn’t right.” In short, it all boils down to mood, feelings, atmosphere. And almost no one speaks directly about the real reasons — which are actually much harsher.

Seldom do they mention:
– how much goes to rent, insurance, food, and healthcare;
– how many years you need to work to save for housing;
– what it feels like to be without citizenship and without a safety net;
– what it’s like to be an adult and have to learn to survive.

Admitting this means admitting you were wrong. And that hurts. Especially if you left loudly and pompously, talking about how you’re “starting from scratch,” how “everything is honest here,” how “Russia has no future.” When your entire public story was built on the image of a winner, admitting defeat is impossible. So instead of the truth, rationalization kicks in. A legend. A soft, neat excuse.


And the person says: “my heart just wasn’t in it,” even though every month they lived in stress about making rent. Or: “I missed my family,” even though they couldn’t find a steady job for over a year. None of this is a lie. But it’s not the whole truth either. But even more interesting are not only those who return, but those who cannot afford to do so. Even if they want to.


Returning to Russia after moving is not just logistics. It’s a blow to the image. Especially if you left loudly, with slogans and pomp. Admitting that “it didn’t work out” means destroying the very picture you built for everyone: on social media, in conversations, in your thoughts.


That’s why so many people stay—not because they are doing well, but because it’s impossible to return without shame. Migration becomes not freedom, but a debt obligation: you are supposed to prove that you did everything right. Even if you no longer believe it yourself.


So people continue to endure: an alien culture, loneliness, meaningless overtime, fear of losing their visa. Because inside there’s a voice: “if you go back, everyone will think you lost”.  But emigration is not a competition. Not everyone has to win. And not every departure is a victory. Sometimes returning is not weakness, but maturity.


Q&A


Question: Why do migrants talk about emotions rather than the real reasons for returning?
Answer: Because admitting material difficulties means admitting the dream didn’t come true. And that hits the pride.


Question: Why do so many different people give such similar explanations?
Answer: Because rationalization is a universal way to protect oneself from feelings of guilt, fear, and disappointment.


Returning does not always mean failure. But if you are afraid to call things by their name—you deprive yourself of the opportunity to understand what really happened.

 


A New Life Built on Old Pain


Most people leave to finally—breathe a sigh of relief: a new country, new rules, “here it will definitely become easier.”


Reality turns out to be different.
– 12–15 hour shifts in a warehouse or in a taxi.
– Bills for rent, insurance, and transportation eat up almost everything left after taxes.
– Restless sleep, an endless schedule, the feeling of constantly being behind on something.


The internal dialogue is simple: “I just need to endure, a little longer. I chose this myself.” And the person endures: fatigue, humiliation, loneliness. And most importantly—the fear of admitting that everything turned out not as dreamed. The harder it actually is, the louder the slogans—to justify the daily stress.


But the real pain begins when former compatriots abroad start talking about Russia as if it were a personal enemy.
Anything good—silence. Any problem—a reason to spit on the past. From the inconvenient facts about their new life, a legend of “the price of freedom” is constructed. Fatigue is “part of the journey,” difficulties are a “challenge.”
These people rarely shout about their success. But when they hear their homeland being trashed, they ask one question: “Why so much hatred for the country that gave you your language, education, and the very opportunity to leave?”


The answer is simple: this is not mature criticism. This is not an honest analysis. This is a panicked defense against internal conflict. Instead of admitting disappointment—devaluing the past. Instead of an honest comparison—an abrupt severance and a loud declaration.


America is not paradise. Russia is not hell. As long as happiness is built on charred memories, the migrant remains captive to their own deception—not at the borders, but to that very “old pain” they wanted to leave behind.

 

Emigration Then and Now: Tragedy, Brand, and the Illusion of an Upgrade

 

Emigration in the past was about survival. It was a step into the void. People left because the alternative was death. War, repression, famine. They left their homeland in tears, with children in their arms, without knowing the language, without plans, without guarantees. They left not for “new opportunities,” but because staying was terrifying. It was an act of desperation. A feat, followed by pain, fear, and loss. Departure was perceived as a tragedy, not as a strategy.


Today, everything is different. Emigration has become convenient. It no longer requires suffering. It’s not an escape—it’s an upgrade. A prepared, planned, logistically precise upgrade. Everything is under control: a lawyer will write that you are a “refugee,” a chat group will advise how to properly build your case, YouTube will teach you how to speak at the interview, how to “cry according to instructions,” how to frame your story so it sounds as tragic as possible. A legend of suffering can be assembled like a construction set—and then sold to everyone around. And then you can calmly fly back to the “country of evil” from which you supposedly “escaped.” Where is the feat here? Where is the fear? Where is the risk?


This is no longer a sacrifice—it’s a transaction. A rational project: prepared, left, adapted. New status, new life, new Instagram. You don’t have to actually experience pain; it’s enough to sell it well to others.
But the paradox is that many continue to wear the mask of “fugitives.” They talk about themselves as if they’ve been through hell, when in reality they just got tired of living in discomfort. They didn’t leave because of misfortune—they left out of boredom, out of routine, from a feeling of stagnation. Not exiles, but dissatisfied consumers who decided that in another supermarket the shelves are better stocked and the service is more pleasant.


This is the biggest transformation. Emigration has ceased to be a tragedy—it has become a technology. An app. An instruction manual. An online course. Not intuition—but a step-by-step guide. Not fate—but a choice.

 

Globalization: One World with Different Signs


The new world used to be a different planet: unfamiliar products, foreign speech, a different rhythm of life. You changed countries—and lost everything familiar. It was a risk. It was an ordeal.


Today, everything is different. Globalization has turned the world into a huge network of copies. Starbucks and McDonald’s—on every corner. Zara, Apple Store, Netflix—the same interface in any country. You don’t leave your comfort zone—you simply log in from a different region. The differences are decorative: a different flag, a different accent, different names on price tags. But the essence—is the same.


The rich live without borders. For the rest—the illusion of change
For wealthy people, the planet has long become a single VIP lounge. Paris, Dubai, Los Angeles—the difference is only in the climate and exchange rate. A flight is not an escape, but a whim. It’s freedom without effort.
But for the majority—it’s not like that. For ordinary people, emigration is not an upgrade, but simply a transfer of the same problems to a different location. It’s not a new start—it’s a new fight. Work, rent, insurance, bills, searching—all the same, just in a different language.


The emigrant continues to be angry at the country, even though the whole world is already the same
The irony is that, having left for a “different” country, many continue to criticize Russia as if they escaped from hell. But the very idea of a “different world”—no longer works. The world is unified. There are differences, but they are not fundamental. Rent is higher somewhere, healthcare is more expensive somewhere else, taxes are stricter somewhere. This is not hell and paradise—these are different configurations of the same system.
Continuing to trash the old country in the new reality is like complaining about one supermarket chain while being in another—with the same assortment, just in different packaging.


Life doesn’t change with a change of country. Only the language of the bill changes Russia, USA, Germany, Italy—the basic realities are the same: rent, taxes, food, healthcare. A person lives paycheck to paycheck. Poverty is global. A security guard in Moscow and a security guard in New York differ only in uniform and currency. The principle is the same: survive, earn, rest for a day—and then survive again.

 


The illusion of a “rich country” and the reality of living conditions


In Russia, despite income levels, many people have housing—maybe old, maybe inherited, but their own. In the USA, where income levels are higher, a person might rent a room until they are 40—and this is considered normal. An American doesn’t feel the drama—they don’t expect their “own” corner. A Russian, finding themselves in this reality, feels cheated.


This is the key distortion: a country may seem “richer,” but the quality of life—is not necessarily higher. Rent kills the budget, insurance eats the leftovers, tax takes half the salary. Did the world change—or just the sign?
Emigration can be liberation. But only if you know why you are leaving.


The most common mistake is to leave from something: from daily routine, from irritation, from the news, from fatigue. But if there is no clear goal—what you want to build, who you want to become, what opportunities you want to realize—the country quickly turns into just another arena for the same battles.


Because you brought with you everything you were running from: attitudes, patterns, fears, shifting responsibility.
It’s worth leaving not from pain, but towards a dream. Then the move is not an escape, but a step. And even if it’s hard, you will understand what you are going for. But as long as your main motive is “just not here,” you will be disappointed in any “there.”

 


Conclusion


This article is not about justifying one country and criticizing another. Nor is it about arguments over where it is better to live. It’s about something else—a sober look at things. About the truth that is easy to overlook.
Emigration is a difficult choice. But it does not automatically grant clarity, freedom, or happiness. It reveals your internal distortions. You thought you would leave—and everything would change. But you remained the same. Just in a different location.


We have seen that most arguments about “where it’s better” are not about facts, but about pain. Defending the new country becomes a defense of one’s decision. Criticizing the old one is a way to avoid guilt, disappointment, or doubt. People are not comparing—they are projecting. And that means they lose the opportunity to truly compare.

Why so fiercely criticize your own country if reality is roughly the same everywhere? Did changing your passport change the rules of the game? Statistics are impartial: in any developed or developing country, about 99% of the
population does not possess the capital that determines real influence and freedom. Whether it’s the USA, Germany, or Russia—the majority of people live paycheck to paycheck, spending most of their income on rent, food, insurance, and debt servicing. If you do not belong to that 1% (or even 10%) of asset owners, you, with high probability, belong to the global majority—those who work for someone else’s system, not those who manage it. Moving may change the currency of your account and the color of your passport, but it very rarely changes this fundamental economic status. The essence remains the same: you either find a way to build your independence within the system, or you continue to justify your dependence on it—now in a new place.


Real emigration is not about geography, but about inner work. It doesn’t matter how many borders you’ve crossed if the old patterns and resentments traveled with you. Change begins not with a visa, but with honesty with yourself.

Sources and Research


· Bankrate. (2024). 64% of Americans Cannot Cover an Emergency Expense of $1000
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-january-2024 (Link inaccessible)
· OECD. (2022). US Healthcare Expenditure and Comparison with Other Countries
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/understanding-differences-in-health-expenditure (Link inaccessible)
· The Commonwealth Fund. (2024). US Ranks Last Among Developed Countries in Healthcare Affordability
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/18/american-health-system-ranks-last
· Expatistan (2025). Cost of Living Comparison: New York City vs. Moscow
https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/moscow/new-york-city
· Numbeo. Prices for Housing, Food, and Healthcare in the USA and Russia
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/
· Pew Research Center. (2019). Migrants and Discrimination
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019
· SBA. Starting a Business in the USA: Legal and Financial Complexities
https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business

 

Videos (YouTube):


· I Regret Leaving the Russian Federation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrT5K_EJXg
· Difficulties and Hardships of Life in Emigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrOEZMe5htY
· Moved to the USA and Lost Myself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INx-dPsFrCM
· Life in the USA: Problems and Disappointments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noZw7xSiXlM
· Why Living in the USA is Harder Than in Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkSD9j5G0P8

 

Here are reliable sources with complete links that support the key ideas of the article:


Globalization of Brands and the Unification of Global Consumption
· Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631-642.
Available on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425098
· Starbucks Case Study in Japan: On combining global and local elements and how the network adapts the experience to local culture.
https://jbr.japancreativeenterprise.jp/2021/07/06/starbucks_japan_glocalization/

The Influence of Social Media and YouTube on the Decision to Emigrate
· Djalali et al. (2024). The Influence of Social Media in Shaping Migration Decision-Making of Iranian Students in Sweden: A Survey-based Quantitative Study.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2%3A1873129/FULLTEXT02.pdf (Link inaccessible)
· Hautamäki et al. (2020). Asylum-Related Migrants’ Social-Media Use, Mobility Decisions, and ….
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15562948.2020.1781991 (Link inaccessible)

Social Media, Disinformation, and Illusions of Success
· Migration narratives on social media: Digital racism and subversive migrant subjectivities.
https://firstmonday.org/index.php/fm/article/view/13715/11652 (Link inaccessible)
· Naghdi, G., & Simonovits, B. (2022). Immigrants of Iranian Origin in Sweden. Intersections.
https://intersections.tk.hu/index.php/intersections/article/view/1203/485 (Link inaccessible)

Economic Realities of Migration
· Human capital flight from Iran: the emigration outflow of qualified specialists, linked not directly to the standard of living, but to systemic reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight_from_Iran (Link inaccessible)

Migration, Myths, and Self-Deception

Migration, Myths, and Self-Deception

Author: Nura Aslan

Inspired by the documentary film “They Stole My American Dream”

Introduction


America is a country of contrasts. In one neighborhood—Teslas, private schools, and gleaming supermarkets. In another—tent encampments of the homeless, burnt-out houses, and fear of a hospital bill. Nevertheless, in the stories of many Russian-speaking emigrants, the USA remains a land of light, freedom, and comfort. And Russia—darkness, poverty, and hopelessness.

 

Why does this happen? Because the comparison is almost always unfair. We place Manhattan next to Murmansk, Silicon Valley next to Voronezh. We compare the best in one country with the worst in another. This is how the illusion of “real life” emerges: as if everything “there” is arranged correctly, while “here” is hopeless.

 

But every country has both light and shadow. It all depends on what we look at and what we want to see. This article is about why emigrant admiration easily turns into ideology, how personal choice becomes a collective position, and the homeland becomes just a crude caricature. 

 

Why Emigrants Think Everything Is Better in Another Country

 

Emigration is not just a change of country. It’s an attempt to start over. A person leaves not only external circumstances but also themselves—their fatigue, disappointments, and feeling of stagnation. To believe that life has changed for the better, the psyche restructures perception.

 

The new is perceived as better. Clean streets, polite people, a different rhythm of life catch the eye. And everything connected with the past becomes a dull background: rudeness, potholes in the roads, a general feeling of hopelessness. Even if in Russia a person had a stable job, family, and free healthcare—this fades into the background. Because admitting the shortcomings of the new country means doubting one’s own decision, which came at a high cost.

 

There is also social pressure. You want to appear confident. You don’t tell friends and family about doubts—only about successes. Thus, gradually an image of the new life emerges, which the emigrant themselves comes to believe. Although behind this facade, there may be hard work, loneliness, and constant stress.

 

What also matters is which country a person left and which they came to. In Russia, it is accepted that the state should treat, teach, and support. In the USA, the approach is different: every man for himself. You want to—fight your way. You don’t want to—no one will save you. For some, this feels like freedom. For others, like cold. In such a system, the previous model begins to seem like a prison, and the new one like fresh air. Although in essence, they are just different rules of the game.

 

True freedom begins with giving up expectations. When you stop waiting for someone to be obliged to help and start seeing things as they are. Acknowledging imperfection is not a defeat. It is maturity.

 

Where the West is Different: Social Contrast with America


It’s important to understand: even those who consider the USA a dream country often see not the real system, but a collective image inspired by media and other people’s stories. But the “West” is not homogeneous. Different countries offer different conditions—and America does not always look advantageous in this comparison.


Here, for example, is a comparison with Canada—a country with a similar standard of living and cultural code, but with a different social policy:
“Comparison of Social Indicators in Canada and the USA (according to 2023 data)” The table below shows key indicators reflecting the basic living conditions in the two countries:


As can be seen, Canada offers a higher basic level of social protection under a comparable tax burden. Public healthcare, paid parental leave, support for labor through unions, and banking regulation create a more stable environment, especially for families and vulnerable categories.


The USA, in contrast, is oriented towards individual responsibility and the market. There is more freedom here—but also more risks. No guaranteed paid parental leave, high healthcare costs, and weak worker protections make the system vulnerable for those who find themselves outside the stable middle class.


Unfair Comparison


When a person wants to convince themselves that they made the right choice, they start comparing. But such comparisons are often dishonest. We do not compare similar cities or conditions. We place the outskirts of Moscow next to the center of Miami. Or we contrast an old house in Ryazan with a clean street in California. But what about Chicago in winter? Or the slums of Los Angeles? They are simply not shown.


This is a technique of scale substitution. Instead of equivalent objects, favorable examples are chosen. It’s like praising American salaries while forgetting to mention the cost of rent. Or admiring the roads without mentioning how much car repairs cost in the USA.


Another technique is choosing a convenient frame. Photos on social media of a person drinking coffee against a backdrop of skyscrapers do not show reality. Only the facade. But real America is not just New York. It’s thousands of small towns where there is no public transport, no healthcare without insurance, and there is a fear of losing your job. Such places simply don’t make it into the lens.


There is another important factor—context. In Russia, someone encounters rudeness at a clinic—and this immediately becomes a reason for comparison. In the USA, if an insurance company denies treatment, they might not talk about it. Or they perceive it as an exception, not as a system.


This is how an image gradually forms: the new country is order, cleanliness, and justice. And the old one is dirt, absurdity, and provincialism. But if you dig deeper, it turns out the difference is not so much between countries, but between expectations and reality.


Comparing is useful. But only honestly. If comparison becomes a way of self-affirmation or propaganda, it turns into an illusion. And living in an illusion means not seeing what is really happening.


Roads


One of the most persistent ideas about America is the notion of flawless roads. In conversations among emigrants, they often become a symbol of “civilized life”: the idea is, if the asphalt is smooth, then the country works. Often, comparisons start with roads: look, they have order there, but here we have potholes and dirt.


Yes, the USA indeed has excellent highways—smooth, wide, clean. Especially on federal interstates between major cities. They are pleasant to drive on, impressive in scale and quality. But this is only part of the picture.


Turn off the main routes, and the quality drops sharply. In residential areas, small towns, and rural areas, roads can be in the same condition as in the Russian hinterlands. Potholes, cracks, patches, unlit shoulders—all of this exists in America; it’s just talked about less. In poor areas, roads can be not only bad but also dangerous due to lack of repairs.


According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 43% of roads in the USA are in poor or mediocre condition. In California, potholes are common. In Michigan, the asphalt goes away with the snow in spring.
But in the emigrant environment, these details are often forgotten. People remember the smooth highway they drove on from the airport but don’t see how the majority of the population lives outside tourist routes. Add to this movies, bloggers, and advertising, which always show smooth asphalt—and an illusion is created that it’s like this throughout the country.


In reality, America is heterogeneous. It truly has excellent roads—and it has destroyed asphalt. Just like in Russia. The difference is only in what we choose to compare—a highway or a country road.

Photo 1. A Typical Comparison on Social Media
This image has become a visual cliché: Russia — darkness, potholes, hopelessness. The USA — smooth asphalt, order, open space. It is posted in stories about “escape from hell,” about “civilization,” about how everything “there” is arranged, and “here” is a failure. But in reality, this is a technique of visual manipulation. It’s not just comparing roads—it’s comparing extremes, substituting scales and context. They place a broken road from northern Russia next to a new highway in Texas. It’s like contrasting a rural hospital with a private clinic in Zurich. And if you remove the flags and imagine both photos are from the same country—would the effect be the same?

 

 

 

 


Photo 2. How People Imagine Roads in the USA
People imagine that all of America is like these highways: smooth, gleaming, fast. This perception is largely shaped by movies, advertising, and travel blogs. It’s precisely these sections—wide freeways, bridges, interchanges—that most often get captured on camera. Especially in the Southern and Western states: Texas, Arizona, California. Here you can indeed find highways that are pleasant to drive on for hours. These roads are a symbol of the American Dream. They are filmed with drones, used in screensavers and travel shows. But it’s important to understand: this is not all of America, but merely its showcase. Beyond the highways, a completely different road reality begins—as heterogeneous as the country itself.

 

Photo 3. Another Reality—Also America
This is also the USA. And not some forgotten villages—but Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Philadelphia. These are the very cities many emigrants strive for, imagining gloss, cleanliness, and order. But just turn off the tourist route—and broken streets appear: potholes, cracks, patches, dirt, trash, and roadsides that haven’t been repaired for years. After winter, the situation is particularly severe—the asphalt literally crumbles under the wheels. In poor areas, it’s even worse: due to lack of funding and prioritization of other tasks (like safety or social assistance), roads are not just neglected—they become dangerous. According to the ASCE report, 43% of all roads in the USA are in poor or mediocre condition. These are not exceptions. This is a systemic problem that exists in parallel with the dream highways. It’s just not filmed with drones and not posted on Instagram. So it’s more honest to say: America has both excellent highways and destroyed asphalt—just like in Russia. Only we choose what exactly we want to see.

 


Healthcare: Between Myth and Reality


One of the most persistent myths is that everything in the USA is free with insurance. In reality, insurance is not a guarantee of free healthcare, but a paid subscription with limitations and risks.


The average cost of insurance for a family is about $22,500 per year, of which the employee pays approximately $6,000. Over 30 million people in the USA have no insurance at all. Even those who are insured often face co-pays and deductibles. This means that for many procedures, you have to pay out of your own pocket—even with “good” insurance. Often these amounts are 20-30% of the total cost of treatment.


According to research, more than 40% of Americans delay visiting a doctor due to high cost. Calling an ambulance can cost between $1,200 and $3,000—and that’s just for transport, not including treatment. All of this makes healthcare in the USA not part of a social system, but a commercial service. If you don’t have a stable income, the system shows its teeth.


From the outside, it may seem that healthcare in the USA is high-tech and clinics are modern. And this is true—but only in the part where the patient has money or good insurance. For the rest, it is a market where a person’s health directly depends on their financial capabilities.


How Much Does the Average American Spend on Healthcare Per Year?


In the USA, the healthcare system is largely privatized, and a significant portion of the costs falls on the shoulders of citizens. The table below shows the main categories of expenses for the average American on medical care per year.


Insurance Premiums — about $5,000 annually. This is the amount citizens pay for health insurance, often through an employer or individually.


Co-pays for Visits — an average of $1,200. Despite having insurance, patients pay out-of-pocket for each doctor’s visit.


Medications Not Covered by Insurance — around $1,500 per year. Many medications, especially rare or brand-name drugs, are not included in insurance plans.
Emergency Medical Services — $1,000. Emergency care in the USA is often particularly expensive.


Medical Debt — another $1,000. Even with insurance, many Americans have to take out loans or pay off debts for medical services received.


Total annual expenses can exceed $9,700, highlighting the significant financial burden on citizens and the vulnerability of a system without universal insurance coverage.


Conclusion: Americans spend substantial amounts on healthcare every year, even when they have insurance. The system remains expensive and not always accessible to everyone.


Education: Knowledge at a High Price


The education system in the USA depends on the area of residence. Schools are funded by local property taxes. In wealthy areas—modern buildings, IT programs, school psychologists. In poor areas—overcrowded classrooms, outdated textbooks, and high crime rates on school grounds.


For a child to get into a good school, families often have to move to a different area, where rent can be two to three times higher. Quality school education becomes a matter not of rights, but of income.


As for universities—tuition at private institutions averages $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Even public universities cost $10,000–$20,000 per year. This leads to an enormous debt burden: total student debt in the USA exceeds $1.7 trillion. More than 43 million people owe banks for their education.

These debts directly impact lives. Young people delay buying homes, starting families, having children. Many work for several years just to cover the interest on their loans.


What’s more important—the level of knowledge does not always match the cost. According to the 2018 PISA international test, the USA scored 478 points in mathematics, Russia scored 488, Germany scored 500, and South Korea scored 526. Meanwhile, education in Russia is free for most students, and paid tuition at public universities costs between $1,000 and $3,000 per year, without accumulating debt.


In Germany, higher education is almost completely free, even for foreigners. In South Korea, it costs 5-6 times less than in the USA, and students show some of the best results in the world.


The conclusion is obvious: in the USA, access to a good education is possible, but it comes at a high price. Moreover, the high cost does not guarantee high results. This is the main difference—knowledge has become an expensive product, not a basic opportunity.


Comparison of Mathematics and Science Results (PISA, 2018)


Let’s look at the table below, which presents the results of the international PISA 2018 study (Programme for International Student Assessment), conducted among 15-year-old students worldwide. The study assesses the level of student preparation in key subjects—mathematics and science.


The graph shows the scores of four countries—the USA, Russia, Germany, and South Korea. The average score on the PISA scale is 500 points, which allows for comparing the educational systems of different countries.


Mathematics Results:
· South Korea — 526 (significantly above average)
· Germany — 500 (exactly at the average level)
· USA — 495 (slightly below average)
· Russia — 478 (below average)

Science Results:
· South Korea — 519
· Germany — 503
· USA — 502
· Russia — 480

Conclusion: The results of the PISA 2018 study demonstrate a clear difference in the level of school education between countries.


South Korea confidently holds leading positions in both subjects, reflecting the effectiveness of its education system, oriented towards high academic results.


Germany shows stable indicators, close to the PISA average, confirming the quality of its traditional and structured educational model.


The USA, despite its high level of universities, lags in school education, especially in mathematics.
Russia shows the least high results among the represented countries, which may indicate the need to reform teaching approaches and school preparation.


These differences underscore the importance of investing in basic school education as the foundation for students’ future success and the country’s economy as a whole.


Or Maybe Not America?


When it comes to the “best standard of living,” the comparison is usually between the USA and Russia. Salaries, healthcare, safety—all of this is important.


But behind the numbers, the main question is often lost: how does a person actually live? They work, rest, sleep—but why do they do all this? To be happy—or to survive? The problem is not money. The problem is philosophy. In that, in some countries, a person is a system, while in others, they are a living being with the right not to be efficient 24/7.


Russia and the USA: Two Extremes of One System


Russia and America seem like opposites. But in relation to labor, they are different poles of the same exhaustion.
In Russia—a habit of survival. Working “three jobs,” not taking sick leave, carrying everything on your shoulders and enduring. There is heroism in this, but no self-care.


In the USA—a cult of productivity. Not just working, but self-actualizing, squeezing out the maximum, being useful, being better. Here, it’s shameful to rest. A two-week vacation—and you should already feel guilty. Even on weekends, people answer emails and fear “falling out” of the race.


Both Russia and America make labor the main form of social value. You either fight—or you are nobody.
And in Europe—it’s different


But there is a third way. It is especially clear in Southern Europe—in Spain, Italy, France.
There, they don’t dream of “making it.” There, they don’t consider overtime as heroism. There, work is part of life, not all of life.
Let’s look at the table—it speaks for itself.
Fewer working hours. Higher life expectancy.
Happiness—not an abstract concept, but a quite measurable index.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spain


Average annual working hours: 1,643
Life expectancy: 84 years
Happiness Index (2024): 6.4 / 10
In Spain, the workday often ends earlier than in the rest of Europe. In the middle of the day—the siesta.
Yes, it hasn’t remained in its original form everywhere, but the rhythm itself persists.
People go home, have lunch, rest.
Dinner—closer to 9:00 PM or 10:00 PM, often with the whole family.
The Spanish know how to switch off, know how to live outside of work, and are not ashamed of it.
And even with high unemployment, they regularly rank high in life satisfaction surveys.


France


Average annual working hours: 1,505
Life expectancy: 83.1 years
Happiness Index (2024): 6.7 / 10
In France, the “right to disconnect” law is in effect—employers are forbidden from contacting employees after work hours.
Lunch lasts from 1 to 1.5 hours.
Sunday is still a “sacred” day: shops are closed, streets empty, everything comes to a standstill.
The French see no point in devoting more time to work than necessary.
They do not believe that success requires sacrificing your personal life.


Italy


Average annual working hours: 1,668
Life expectancy: 84 years
Happiness Index (2024): 6.5 / 10
In Italy, life and work coexist on equal terms.
From 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM — riposo, a break.
Business may stop, streets may empty.
Family, socializing, tranquility—these are key cultural values.
Working until night is not considered a sign of strength; on the contrary, it signals that you don’t know how to organize your life.
Italians do not shirk responsibility—they refuse to sacrifice themselves unnecessarily.


Conclusion: while the USA and Russia compete with each other in “efficiency,” the countries of Southern Europe build life around the person, not around KPIs.
And the results speak for themselves:
· Life expectancy is 8–16 years higher
· Happiness indices are stable
· Working hours are fewer
· And most importantly—living there is not considered a weakness.


Crime and Safety: Romance with a Gun


There is a myth that America is a safe country where people smile and the police will always help. In reality, the situation is much more complex and depends heavily on the specific city and area.


Cities like Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago, and Memphis are among the most dangerous in the USA. In some areas of Los Angeles, New York, or Houston, locals advise not to get out of your car at night. According to the Gun Violence Archive, more than 40,000 people die from firearms in the USA every year. This includes homicides, suicides, and accidents. In 2023, there were over 600 mass shootings in the country. Schools install metal detectors, conduct evacuation drills, and students live with the thought of potential threat from childhood.
In Russia, the problems are different. The main risks are domestic violence, street aggression, and police passivity, especially in the provinces. However, mass school shootings, as seen in the USA, are practically non-existent. The population is not armed, and the overall accessibility of weapons is much lower.


In terms of homicide rate, Russia lags behind many American metropolises. This does not mean that Russia is safe—just that the threats are different. If in the USA a person fears being caught in gunfire in a store, in Russia they fear facing inaction or rudeness in an emergency situation.


Both systems are unsafe, but in different ways. In one, there is a constant threat of armed violence; in the other, a fear of being left without help. Neither experience should be idealized—it’s important to understand what the risk actually entails.


Why Russia Is Demonized


In emigrant circles, conversations about Russia often turn into a stream of irony and humiliation. This is not so much personal pain as a group mindset. Speaking well of the country you left is considered a sign of naivety. But sarcasm and criticism are perceived as maturity, as a sign of “I am no longer from there.”


This is how adaptation through opposition works. To become “one of us” in a new culture, a person distances themselves from the past. They no longer say “I left Russia,” they say “I escaped from hell.” This sounds brighter, simpler, evokes sympathy and recognition. Over time, this presentation becomes the norm. Especially in the information space. YouTube and TikTok algorithms promote videos with headlines like: “Here’s why I won’t return to Russia,” “10 horrors of life in the Russian Federation,” “After America, no desire to go home.” Moderate voices get lost. Sharp ones gather millions of views.
This creates a bubble effect. A person constantly hears the same thing: Russia is devastation, aggression, hopelessness. And the West is comfort, freedom, order. Even if the emigrant themselves doesn’t think so, the flow of content shapes the general mood. Criticizing Russia is normal. Praising it is shameful.


As a result, reality disappears. Russia is a huge and contradictory country. It has cruelty and injustice, but it also has warmth, vibrant communities, and strong people. The same goes for the USA: here there is comfort and opportunity, but also fear, loneliness, and inequality. Demonization is the same illusion as idealization. Only with the opposite sign.


When a person replaces a living, complex country with an image of absolute evil, they stop understanding where they come from. And that means they lose a part of themselves.


Cognitive Distortion: America Does Not Equal “Well Done”


When it comes to the success of the USA, we are often presented with an image: look, Silicon Valley, the stock exchange, the global dollar, technology leaders, venture capital, innovation. And people sincerely think that all this is the result of the “American way of life.” That, supposedly, if you work hard like an American, you will become like Steve Jobs. But this is a typical cognitive distortion.


In reality, the success of the USA is not the success of its people. It is the success of capital. It does not have to be connected to a way of life, to hard work, to character. It is connected to where and under what conditions capital found it convenient to exist. And America simply turned out to be that territory—by pure historical logic.


California is not equal to all of America. Silicon Valley is not typical American life. It is a narrow elite sector where the best of the best from around the world work, but certainly not the majority of Americans. The fact that it “pulls the US economy” does not make the average resident of Iowa a participant in innovation. It’s like thinking you’re a co-author with Elon Musk just because you live in the same country.


The stock exchange is not a popular achievement. After World War II, the USA became the only major player with an undestroyed economy. It was then, in 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference, that the dollar was officially established as the world reserve currency. And when in 1971 the USA decoupled the dollar from gold, they gained the ability to print money in any volume, competing with no one. That is, the status of the dollar is not the result of the people’s hard work, but a historical and political construct based on military and economic monopoly.
The reality in the USA is much harsher than its picture. People work 60–70 hours a week. They are afraid of losing their insurance. They take out 30-year mortgages.


They burn out, they don’t rest. They accumulate debt for education. Essentially, they live in a system where success is possible—but only for a few. For the rest, there is insomnia, loans, antidepressants, and no vacation.
And all this is despite the fact that these very people are often considered “lucky” simply because they were born in the territory where capital is based. This is the survivor’s error. When a person lives not richly, not freely, but thinks they have won in life just because of their passport.


But capital doesn’t need countries. It has no citizenship. It simply concentrates where it is convenient. And if tomorrow it becomes more profitable elsewhere, it will leave. And the people will remain. With their debts, tired bodies, and the illusion that they are part of a “great country.”


In reality, it’s not the country that wins. It’s just that it is the office rental space for capital. Temporarily.


What Self-Deception Leads To


When a person lives for years in a distorted picture, where one country is an ideal and another is the source of all ills, they gradually lose contact with reality. They don’t just believe in a beautiful story—they adjust their entire life to fit it. And everything that doesn’t fit this scheme causes irritation, anxiety, or shame.


Self-deception helps not to feel pain. It allows you not to regret the break with the past, not to doubt decisions made, not to admit that the new life is also exhausting. But such an approach has a price: it makes a person blind to the present. It prevents them from seeing how the world around them works, from honestly discussing difficulties, and from understanding what they really want.


Often such people find themselves in a state of limbo. They don’t feel “at home” either there or here. It seems to them that everything is bad in Russia, but in the new country, there is also no sense of support. They find it hard to make plans, to go back, to admit doubts. Hard to simply be—without excuses and slogans.


Another problem is the impossibility of open conversation. When a person constantly proves that everything is fine with them, they distance themselves from loved ones. They cannot say: “I’m struggling,” “I miss you,” “I’m not sure.” Communication turns into a play of roles: the successful emigrant versus those who stayed behind. This destroys relationships and intensifies loneliness.


Self-deception hinders adaptation. While a person is busy maintaining the image of a “new life,” they may miss real opportunities. They fear admitting they don’t understand something. They close themselves off from the local culture. And in the end—they remain in isolation, even while being in the country of their dreams.


But the most important thing is that self-deception prevents you from being alive. And life is not only comfort and success, but also fear, doubt, and searching. Accepting this does not mean losing. It means growing up.


Conclusion


The purpose of this article is not to whitewash Russia or to denigrate the USA.It is not about where it is better to live.
It is about how important it is to see reality without filters—and not to build your beliefs on illusions, fears, or grievances.


Every country is a system of compromises. Somewhere there is more freedom, but less support. Somewhere salaries are higher, but so is the risk of being left without insurance. Somewhere the bureaucracy is slower, but help is closer.


It’s important not to compare facades, but to understand what they are built on. When we compare countries, we must do so honestly—not based on YouTube videos, not on vacation photos, not on other people’s stories. But on facts, figures, personal experience, and our own values.

Emigration is a difficult step, unique to each person. But it does not require making a caricature of the past and a cult of the future. Reality is not perfect, neither here nor there. And it is precisely this understanding that makes a person truly free. And also—mortal.


We are all walking in the same direction. And at the end of the road, it does not matter how many hours you spent working, in which territory you lived, or how many followers you had. Only one question matters: did you have time to live? If not, no passport, no visa, no flag will help.

Links
1. Roads in the USA
· ASCE – Report on the condition of roads in the USA:
https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads-infrastructure
· CNBC – Problems with roads in the USA:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/america-has-a-massive-road-problem.html
2. Healthcare and Insurance
· KFF – Annual report on the cost of health insurance:
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2023-employer-health-benefits-survey/
· Healthcare.gov – Official website on insurance in the USA:
https://www.healthcare.gov/
· CNBC – 42% of Americans delay doctor visits due to cost:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/42percent-of-americans-delay-medical-care-due-to-cost.html
· Healthline – Costs of ambulance services in the USA:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ambulance-costs-can-be-surprising
3. Education and Student Debt
· Federal Reserve System – Statistics on student debt:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/current/
· NCES – Cost of tuition in the USA:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
· OECD – PISA 2018 Results:
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.html
· Gun Violence Archive
4. Crime and Safety
· Gun Violence Archive – Statistics on mass shootings:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
· CDC – Statistics on firearm deaths:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.html
· Investopedia
· +5
· ASCE’s 2025 Infrastructure Report Card |
· +5
· LendingTree
· +5
5. Additional
· Pew Research – Surveys of emigrants and perceptions of life in the USA:
https://www.pewresearch.org/
· The Atlantic – Visual manipulation on social media:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/10/instagram-reality-distortion/620377/
· Working hours (OECD 2023):
https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.html
· Life expectancy (Worldometer 2025):
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy

Rhonda Damiano & Daniel — Hollywood Hills Party

Fragments of the party – in color and in grain

Photo

Producer, photographer – Dmitry Korikov


Retoucher – Mikhail Vukolov


Media content manager – Evgeny Oreshko

Producer assistant – Roman Nguen

Wed-developer – Olga Shcherbak

Tag Instagram… and we’ll repost you

If you need photo processing and retouching, please contact our retoucher