4 ms·

Alright, let's talk in this way. You mean a sink of human capital that would in the process destroy the social fabric of the neighboring countries by robbing i

Alright, let's talk in this way. You mean a sink of human capital that would in the process destroy the social fabric of the neighboring countries by robbing it of their best, while at the same time give no reason for a country's most profitable companies to feel inclined to raise how much they are willing to pay for labor? Or you meant a way to ignore that a country does have a way to make young workers and expand towards attracting outside young workers, while ignoring the reasons the local sources of young workers fail? "socio-political degeneration absorbs and neutralizes a decaying trend of techno-economic advance"? wow, what a great idea.

time_to_smile 4y ago
I'm so glad to hear that your primary concern around immigration is the impact on other countries. Good news! It turns out that while your thesis sounds reasonable it is in fact not the case. Here in the US our two largest immigrant groups are people from Indian and China. It turns out that both of these countries seemed to have benefit greatly from the exchange. While many very talented migrants have chosen to remain in the US, a sizable number of taken the skills and experience they've learned here and brought them back to their home countries. Not only that but during our period of highest immigration, salaries from those very companies hiring the most migrant workers were some of the highest in the world, much higher than typically seen in, for example, the UK. At the same time we've also seen salaries rise in India and China. I'm guessing on seeing that your theoretical concerns don't pan out in the real world you'll likely change your stance on the issue. If not that there must be some other logic I'm missing that is guiding your opinions on the topic.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  History shows that when goods and people can move around between two regions, both regions prosper. This is exactly what has happened with USA <-> China and India. These are literally the 3 gigantic economies that are growing rapidly today.
  - ominous 4y ago
    That's an argument to observe prosperity happen, not to ignore failure to raise a generation of workers nor to ignore that people see reasons to leave their countries.
- ominous 4y ago
  > I'm so glad to hear that your primary concern around immigration is the impact on other countries You are not. Rather, you are being facetious. > It turns out that while your thesis sounds reasonable it is in fact not the case. It's not a thesis, but meant to derail a conversation, implying there's one true answer just like the comment I was replying to did. And yours as well, as you don't address what I raised. > Here in the US The UK is not the US. > It turns out that both of these countries seemed to have benefit greatly from the exchange. So you agree damaging the country that provides young workers is bad. Thank you. > While many very talented migrants have chosen to remain in the US, a sizable number of taken the skills and experience they've learned here and brought them back to their home countries. So to have some immigrants go back is desirable? Can you phrase it as policy? Something like "we don't want you to remain here for as long as too many of your cohort do the same". It goes against the comment I was replying, that specifically asked for low barrier to move and work. > Not only that but during our period of highest immigration, salaries from those very companies hiring the most migrant workers were some of the highest in the world, much higher than typically seen in, for example, the UK. At the same time we've also seen salaries rise in India and China. It says nothing about what they would be should there have been not as much immigration. > I'm guessing on seeing that your theoretical concerns don't pan out in the real world you'll likely change your stance on the issue. If not that there must be some other logic I'm missing that is guiding your opinions on the topic. You missed that this was not a conversation, and you did not make it one. The comment I replied to assumed there was only one answer. And you assume all the counters I raised are misplaced because they can be countered with your comment. Answer my main points. Does brain drain not exist? Do you want to exfiltrate the young generation from worse off countries? Do you want to incentivize young workers to leave their native countries instead of whatever else you must think young workers can contribute there? Do you want to signal to the local young workers they are wrong in refusing the local salaries because someone from abroad will take them? Do you want to signal to the local population that there's no incentive in raising the next generation because the solution is to have people born and educated abroad to come here to work temporarily and then abandon (with their savings, I assume) the country once they had enough? Do want to continue to degrade the social fabric by insisting in economic advancement instead of fixing what leads to lack of workers?
  - 4y ago

time_to_smile 4y ago

I'm so glad to hear that your primary concern around immigration is the impact on other countries. Good news! It turns out that while your thesis sounds reasonable it is in fact not the case. Here in the US our two largest immigrant groups are people from Indian and China. It turns out that both of these countries seemed to have benefit greatly from the exchange. While many very talented migrants have chosen to remain in the US, a sizable number of taken the skills and experience they've learned here and brought them back to their home countries. Not only that but during our period of highest immigration, salaries from those very companies hiring the most migrant workers were some of the highest in the world, much higher than typically seen in, for example, the UK. At the same time we've also seen salaries rise in India and China. I'm guessing on seeing that your theoretical concerns don't pan out in the real world you'll likely change your stance on the issue. If not that there must be some other logic I'm missing that is guiding your opinions on the topic.

nine_zeros 4y ago
History shows that when goods and people can move around between two regions, both regions prosper. This is exactly what has happened with USA <-> China and India. These are literally the 3 gigantic economies that are growing rapidly today.
- ominous 4y ago
  That's an argument to observe prosperity happen, not to ignore failure to raise a generation of workers nor to ignore that people see reasons to leave their countries.
ominous 4y ago
> I'm so glad to hear that your primary concern around immigration is the impact on other countries You are not. Rather, you are being facetious. > It turns out that while your thesis sounds reasonable it is in fact not the case. It's not a thesis, but meant to derail a conversation, implying there's one true answer just like the comment I was replying to did. And yours as well, as you don't address what I raised. > Here in the US The UK is not the US. > It turns out that both of these countries seemed to have benefit greatly from the exchange. So you agree damaging the country that provides young workers is bad. Thank you. > While many very talented migrants have chosen to remain in the US, a sizable number of taken the skills and experience they've learned here and brought them back to their home countries. So to have some immigrants go back is desirable? Can you phrase it as policy? Something like "we don't want you to remain here for as long as too many of your cohort do the same". It goes against the comment I was replying, that specifically asked for low barrier to move and work. > Not only that but during our period of highest immigration, salaries from those very companies hiring the most migrant workers were some of the highest in the world, much higher than typically seen in, for example, the UK. At the same time we've also seen salaries rise in India and China. It says nothing about what they would be should there have been not as much immigration. > I'm guessing on seeing that your theoretical concerns don't pan out in the real world you'll likely change your stance on the issue. If not that there must be some other logic I'm missing that is guiding your opinions on the topic. You missed that this was not a conversation, and you did not make it one. The comment I replied to assumed there was only one answer. And you assume all the counters I raised are misplaced because they can be countered with your comment. Answer my main points. Does brain drain not exist? Do you want to exfiltrate the young generation from worse off countries? Do you want to incentivize young workers to leave their native countries instead of whatever else you must think young workers can contribute there? Do you want to signal to the local young workers they are wrong in refusing the local salaries because someone from abroad will take them? Do you want to signal to the local population that there's no incentive in raising the next generation because the solution is to have people born and educated abroad to come here to work temporarily and then abandon (with their savings, I assume) the country once they had enough? Do want to continue to degrade the social fabric by insisting in economic advancement instead of fixing what leads to lack of workers?
- 4y ago