3 ms·

The choice of word is interesting: encouraging immigration of skilled workers to the US has the benefit of preventing them from participating in the development

by dudul 8y ago

The choice of word is interesting: encouraging immigration of skilled workers to the US has the benefit of preventing them from participating in the development of their home country. Short term, sure it's beneficial for the US, but I don't think it's a good idea to reflect in a vacuum or only thinking short term. Emergent countries being able to develop is beneficial for everybody.

damnyou 8y ago
What about the immigrants? It's a huge benefit to them!
- dudul 8y ago
  Of course, but that's not what the original message was pointing out. Comparing countries stealing other countries skilled workers and companies poaching employees is not a good idea IMO, that's all.
  - damnyou 8y ago
    It's the same thing, it's just the barriers are different. Silicon Valley is successful partly because noncompetes don't get enforced in California. It makes things slightly worse in the short term for each company but better for both the individuals and the world overall. The US has been successful partly because it's attracted so many skilled immigrants. It makes things slightly worse for other countries in the short term (though remittances!) but is better for both the individuals and the world overall.
    - rhexs 8y ago
      Citation? Brain drain, so that Silicon Valley can produce various ride-sharing and world-changing pizza delivery apps, is better for the world? I certainly think it's better for the rich as it drives the stock market up, but a blanket "better for the world overall" is certainly an interesting take.
outworlder 8y ago
> The choice of word is interesting: encouraging immigration of skilled workers to the US has the benefit of preventing them from participating in the development of their home country. In theory, yes. However, in practice, "participating in the development" can mean working for crappy employers, for a pittance, on some ass backward php/delphi/whatever system that has been accruing technical debt for the past decade. Not all developing countries are friendly for entrepreneurs either(bureaucracy, corruption, taxes, limited access to credit), so options may be limited. In many cases, they wouldn't be able to contribute that much, but they may be highly skilled, and the United States works as a force multiplier. Source: came from a third world country, had a company for a couple of years, spent another couple of years trying to officially close that company after operations had ceased.
bobthechef 8y ago
National (or oligarchical) competition is far from dead, despite the vacuous, maudlin bromides about global unity that will never be true. Why would you expect the US (or anyone else) not to drain other countries of their workers if it suits them? The emphasis is on "if". South Korea was transformed from a backwards rice farming country into a financially prosperous one not by draining Korea of Koreans, but in no small part because it was in the US's interest.

by dudul 8y ago

damnyou 8y ago

What about the immigrants? It's a huge benefit to them!

dudul 8y ago
Of course, but that's not what the original message was pointing out. Comparing countries stealing other countries skilled workers and companies poaching employees is not a good idea IMO, that's all.
- damnyou 8y ago
  It's the same thing, it's just the barriers are different. Silicon Valley is successful partly because noncompetes don't get enforced in California. It makes things slightly worse in the short term for each company but better for both the individuals and the world overall. The US has been successful partly because it's attracted so many skilled immigrants. It makes things slightly worse for other countries in the short term (though remittances!) but is better for both the individuals and the world overall.
  - rhexs 8y ago
    Citation? Brain drain, so that Silicon Valley can produce various ride-sharing and world-changing pizza delivery apps, is better for the world? I certainly think it's better for the rich as it drives the stock market up, but a blanket "better for the world overall" is certainly an interesting take.

outworlder 8y ago

> The choice of word is interesting: encouraging immigration of skilled workers to the US has the benefit of preventing them from participating in the development of their home country. In theory, yes. However, in practice, "participating in the development" can mean working for crappy employers, for a pittance, on some ass backward php/delphi/whatever system that has been accruing technical debt for the past decade. Not all developing countries are friendly for entrepreneurs either(bureaucracy, corruption, taxes, limited access to credit), so options may be limited. In many cases, they wouldn't be able to contribute that much, but they may be highly skilled, and the United States works as a force multiplier. Source: came from a third world country, had a company for a couple of years, spent another couple of years trying to officially close that company after operations had ceased.

bobthechef 8y ago

National (or oligarchical) competition is far from dead, despite the vacuous, maudlin bromides about global unity that will never be true. Why would you expect the US (or anyone else) not to drain other countries of their workers if it suits them? The emphasis is on "if". South Korea was transformed from a backwards rice farming country into a financially prosperous one not by draining Korea of Koreans, but in no small part because it was in the US's interest.