3 ms·

And how would you stop accepting the outward movement of people educated in Romania? Not sure if you are proposing to restrict freedom of movement, but that wou

by lifty 7y ago

And how would you stop accepting the outward movement of people educated in Romania? Not sure if you are proposing to restrict freedom of movement, but that would be pretty hard to pass, and frankly scary. As I see it, the only reasonable way to fight the brain drain is to make it attractive for young people to stay in Romania.

microcolonel 7y ago
> Not sure if you are proposing to restrict freedom of movement, but that would be pretty hard to pass, and frankly scary. My thought is that they should create some form of obligation or tuition option for the schools so that they don't subsidize people who ultimately leave their economy. You stay in Romania, your tuition is subsidized like normal, if you leave Romania and become resident elsewhere, you pay a bill to recover the cost of educating you. Obviously they can't, as a matter of civil rights, prohibit people who are not criminals from leaving the country, but they have tools to enforce agreements like that at least with EU member states, and states they generally have relationships with regardless (i.e. UK).
- sbacic 7y ago
  A couple of problems with this idea - one, the people emigrating and their parents paid for that tuition through taxes. Second, what about all the people who finish college and stay in Romania, but work in some dead end job that doesn't even need higher education? And lastly, this would mean keeping the people most dissatisfied with the current state of the country in the country. No corrupt government would want that. Much better for them to leave and not cause any trouble.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > their parents paid for that tuition through taxes The way that (modern) governments finance programs like this is exactly the opposite of your model of it. Your parents didn't pay to subsidize your education, the next generation did (this is in part why birth/immigration rates falling is taken as such bad news). > Second, what about all the people who finish college and stay in Romania, but work in some dead end job that doesn't even need higher education? The next ones will know from that more about the demand for educated people, and adjust accordingly; at least they mainly wasted time and not money on getting into that dead-end job. > And lastly, this would mean keeping the people most dissatisfied with the current state of the country in the country. No corrupt government would want that. Much better for them to leave and not cause any trouble. Sure, but should we govern based on what the government wants? The people benefit when the legitimately dissatisfied are heard rather than just swept under the rug. As for it being a corrupt government that encourages the people most likely to become dissidents to leave the country, what does that say about the countries receiving those dissidents? Is it moral to accept masses dissatisfied people from a country that suffers more from politics than from geography? Is that moral even when that country does have enough semblance of free expression that you could conceive of dissidents making a difference from the inside?

by lifty 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

> Not sure if you are proposing to restrict freedom of movement, but that would be pretty hard to pass, and frankly scary. My thought is that they should create some form of obligation or tuition option for the schools so that they don't subsidize people who ultimately leave their economy. You stay in Romania, your tuition is subsidized like normal, if you leave Romania and become resident elsewhere, you pay a bill to recover the cost of educating you. Obviously they can't, as a matter of civil rights, prohibit people who are not criminals from leaving the country, but they have tools to enforce agreements like that at least with EU member states, and states they generally have relationships with regardless (i.e. UK).

sbacic 7y ago
A couple of problems with this idea - one, the people emigrating and their parents paid for that tuition through taxes. Second, what about all the people who finish college and stay in Romania, but work in some dead end job that doesn't even need higher education? And lastly, this would mean keeping the people most dissatisfied with the current state of the country in the country. No corrupt government would want that. Much better for them to leave and not cause any trouble.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > their parents paid for that tuition through taxes The way that (modern) governments finance programs like this is exactly the opposite of your model of it. Your parents didn't pay to subsidize your education, the next generation did (this is in part why birth/immigration rates falling is taken as such bad news). > Second, what about all the people who finish college and stay in Romania, but work in some dead end job that doesn't even need higher education? The next ones will know from that more about the demand for educated people, and adjust accordingly; at least they mainly wasted time and not money on getting into that dead-end job. > And lastly, this would mean keeping the people most dissatisfied with the current state of the country in the country. No corrupt government would want that. Much better for them to leave and not cause any trouble. Sure, but should we govern based on what the government wants? The people benefit when the legitimately dissatisfied are heard rather than just swept under the rug. As for it being a corrupt government that encourages the people most likely to become dissidents to leave the country, what does that say about the countries receiving those dissidents? Is it moral to accept masses dissatisfied people from a country that suffers more from politics than from geography? Is that moral even when that country does have enough semblance of free expression that you could conceive of dissidents making a difference from the inside?