3 ms·

Good study and all, but I think it misses the point of the current sentiment in the US. Regardless, yes, immigrants are more likely to found businesses than na

by Mikeb85 10y ago

Good study and all, but I think it misses the point of the current sentiment in the US. Regardless, yes, immigrants are more likely to found businesses than natives. Whether or not their businesses become billion dollar startups because of their efforts or venture capitalists is another question, but yes, they help the economy (As much as those who are a drag on it? Who knows). I wrote a lengthy post about the effects of immigration recently, so here's I'll just focus on the issue of human capital. Immigration creates a situation for rich countries to be able to draw from a much larger pool of talent than they otherwise would since they take talent from other countries. This is a great situation for the host country, and devastates developing economies. It's basically colonialism all over, except instead of stealing physical commodities you're stealing human capital. Relevant article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight And of course, there are negative effects in the host country, namely that there's more competition for jobs, which can drive wages down, eliminate some jobs for natives altogether, etc... The hope is that this effect is offset by the job creation effect, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The US rust belt certainly doesn't seem to be gaining much, but other areas are. Anyhow, the whole point of this is that there's well known pros and cons to immigration. It's not all pro, nor all con. You need to ask exactly what you want the end-game to be - not just for the US, but for the world. Human capital flight is the single biggest obstacle to development for the third world. At the same time, it allows the west to gather all the brightest minds in the world to maintain its hegemony. What's more important - maintaining a dominant place in the world, or more equal development that doesn't leave anyone behind? (I mean, I know the answer - we're willing to destroy countries who go against western hegemony and simply absorb the migrants)

VikingCoder 10y ago
> Human capital flight is the single biggest obstacle to development for the third world. Citation needed.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  There's a million studies done about it. Also, the Wiki link I posted contained lots of links and references. Anyhow, here's one: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/human_cap.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resource... Quote from it: Weakness in human capital and particularly skill deficiency is a drag on investment and growth in Africa. Progress in overcoming shortages of skilled and trained manpower seems to be disappointingly slow, despite substantial resources devoted by both governments and donors to this effort during the last three decades (OED, 1994). This deficiency is sustained at the same time that Africa is losing a very significant proportion of its skilled and professional manpower to other markets and increasingly depending on expatriates for many vital functions. Edit - here's another: http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf Relevant quotes: OIC countries face multiple challenges in achieving their development goals and reducing the gap with developed countries; one of the main challenges is the plight of human capital flight or what is known as brain drain. In recent times, brain drain has been exacerbated by globalization which has increased people mobility across country boundaries (see Iredale, 2001; Shenkar, 2001; Stalker, 2000). Furthermore, the internationalization of professions and professional labor market has led to an increase in the level of mobility and thus brain drain as documented in the works of Carr et al. (2005) and Iredale (2001) Like I said, this is a well known, well understood phenomenon. Hell, a generation ago the Canadian government was trying to stop brain drain to the US since it was a drag on growth. Edit2 http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.edu/data-collections/new-immigrant-survey/P08_Rosenzweig.pdf http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.ed... A little more academic (ie. more math-y and economics-y).
  - VikingCoder 10y ago
    I was trying to gather more information, not debate. But now that you mention it, none of those citations support your hyperbole that human capital flight "is the single biggest obstacle". They all refer to it as "a" problem, or "one of the main."
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      Sorry, I'm just jaded (seems any statement on the internet is met with "source please"). Anyhow, it's not politically popular to state such in today's climate, but it is the largest impediment to development. We could also add war, famine, and a lack of institutions, but those are arguably caused by a lack of development and lower human capital. It's not exactly a politically correct thing to say but, if all the educated people move away from a country, who's left to rule it? Anyhow, lots of sources list corruption, inequality, human capital flight - my opinion is based on both my education (in economics) as well as my experience.
- dzonga 10y ago
  Perfect example would be Zimbabwe
int_19h 10y ago
You do understand that the implication of your argument is that those people who come to US should be, effectively, forced to stay in their countries of birth, and work for their benefit? You talk in terms of benefits and drawbacks for societies collectively. What about benefits and drawbacks for individuals? A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to. If you deprive them of that ability and that choice, you're harming them - specifically, you're restricting their individual natural right to freedom of association and to pursuit of happiness. If your claim is that it is unfair, guess what? Forcing people to stay somewhere just because they were born there is also unfair by the same metric. If you're willing to restrict people's choice and force them to associate with a particular society to mitigate that unfairness, why are you only applying those restrictions to immigrants - why not to Americans? Let's send some of the best and brightest Americans to work in India. Oh, they don't want to? Too bad, we have the harmful effects of colonialism to mitigate, and no-one is entitled to live in a developed country until that's done.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  > A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to. If you deprive them of that ability and that choice, you're harming them - specifically, you're restricting their individual natural right to freedom of association and to pursuit of happiness. Here's a question for you: Can the US absorb all 1.3 billion people in India? Then how about another billion from Africa? May as well throw in another half billion from other poor countries around the world. Yes, it's all nice and good to say an individual should be able to do what they want. But at some point you're faced with limited space, resources, and social and economic issues.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    No, I don't think US can absorb that many people, and I don't object to the notion that US can institute some sort of a screen to pare those numbers down - ideally, merit-based (which would be both fair, and beneficial to US). But that is a completely different argument from "we won't let you in, because we want you to work for the benefit of the country from which you come" that you've been making. In a system with a screen, it's still the individual's choice to decide to immigrate or not, and to try to get past that screening - or to shop around for various places and pick one which is more likely to be acceptable given the skills they have, or that are feasible for them to acquire (e.g. if you can and are willing to learn French, Quebec might be an interesting option).

by Mikeb85 10y ago

VikingCoder 10y ago

> Human capital flight is the single biggest obstacle to development for the third world. Citation needed.

Mikeb85 10y ago
There's a million studies done about it. Also, the Wiki link I posted contained lots of links and references. Anyhow, here's one: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/human_cap.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resource... Quote from it: Weakness in human capital and particularly skill deficiency is a drag on investment and growth in Africa. Progress in overcoming shortages of skilled and trained manpower seems to be disappointingly slow, despite substantial resources devoted by both governments and donors to this effort during the last three decades (OED, 1994). This deficiency is sustained at the same time that Africa is losing a very significant proportion of its skilled and professional manpower to other markets and increasingly depending on expatriates for many vital functions. Edit - here's another: http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf Relevant quotes: OIC countries face multiple challenges in achieving their development goals and reducing the gap with developed countries; one of the main challenges is the plight of human capital flight or what is known as brain drain. In recent times, brain drain has been exacerbated by globalization which has increased people mobility across country boundaries (see Iredale, 2001; Shenkar, 2001; Stalker, 2000). Furthermore, the internationalization of professions and professional labor market has led to an increase in the level of mobility and thus brain drain as documented in the works of Carr et al. (2005) and Iredale (2001) Like I said, this is a well known, well understood phenomenon. Hell, a generation ago the Canadian government was trying to stop brain drain to the US since it was a drag on growth. Edit2 http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.edu/data-collections/new-immigrant-survey/P08_Rosenzweig.pdf http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.ed... A little more academic (ie. more math-y and economics-y).
- VikingCoder 10y ago
  I was trying to gather more information, not debate. But now that you mention it, none of those citations support your hyperbole that human capital flight "is the single biggest obstacle". They all refer to it as "a" problem, or "one of the main."
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    Sorry, I'm just jaded (seems any statement on the internet is met with "source please"). Anyhow, it's not politically popular to state such in today's climate, but it is the largest impediment to development. We could also add war, famine, and a lack of institutions, but those are arguably caused by a lack of development and lower human capital. It's not exactly a politically correct thing to say but, if all the educated people move away from a country, who's left to rule it? Anyhow, lots of sources list corruption, inequality, human capital flight - my opinion is based on both my education (in economics) as well as my experience.
dzonga 10y ago
Perfect example would be Zimbabwe

int_19h 10y ago

You do understand that the implication of your argument is that those people who come to US should be, effectively, forced to stay in their countries of birth, and work for their benefit? You talk in terms of benefits and drawbacks for societies collectively. What about benefits and drawbacks for individuals? A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to. If you deprive them of that ability and that choice, you're harming them - specifically, you're restricting their individual natural right to freedom of association and to pursuit of happiness. If your claim is that it is unfair, guess what? Forcing people to stay somewhere just because they were born there is also unfair by the same metric. If you're willing to restrict people's choice and force them to associate with a particular society to mitigate that unfairness, why are you only applying those restrictions to immigrants - why not to Americans? Let's send some of the best and brightest Americans to work in India. Oh, they don't want to? Too bad, we have the harmful effects of colonialism to mitigate, and no-one is entitled to live in a developed country until that's done.

Mikeb85 10y ago
> A person who is coming from, say, India to US is doing so because they want to, not because they're forced to. If you deprive them of that ability and that choice, you're harming them - specifically, you're restricting their individual natural right to freedom of association and to pursuit of happiness. Here's a question for you: Can the US absorb all 1.3 billion people in India? Then how about another billion from Africa? May as well throw in another half billion from other poor countries around the world. Yes, it's all nice and good to say an individual should be able to do what they want. But at some point you're faced with limited space, resources, and social and economic issues.
- int_19h 10y ago
  No, I don't think US can absorb that many people, and I don't object to the notion that US can institute some sort of a screen to pare those numbers down - ideally, merit-based (which would be both fair, and beneficial to US). But that is a completely different argument from "we won't let you in, because we want you to work for the benefit of the country from which you come" that you've been making. In a system with a screen, it's still the individual's choice to decide to immigrate or not, and to try to get past that screening - or to shop around for various places and pick one which is more likely to be acceptable given the skills they have, or that are feasible for them to acquire (e.g. if you can and are willing to learn French, Quebec might be an interesting option).