Last time I was thinking about it, I got to a more optimistic solution... but time will verify what is true. A couple of ideas: If someone moves around, he/she's probably more capable of adaptation than many others. He/she's probably also more intelligent than an average Joe. They're also less likely to have a family and probably around the age where they might want one. So it's quite probable, that it's really a migration of talent. This talent positively influences the destination country (as do the taxes you pay there)... In the end - one might hope that by migrating, you're not only helping themselves, but voting with their actions and supporting the laws they accept...
It seems unlikely that talent is leaving because moving money out of the country is hard. Where would they move to? The simple explanation is income and quality of life is higher in richer countries. The vast majority of emigrants don't have entrepreneurial ambitions.
It's easier to move (yourself and your family) to a more favorable country than to change an entire country to be more favorable, especially considering how large and complicated these nations are.
The downside is that the people leaving also tend to be the most capable of producing that change so the brain/skills-drain is self-perpetuating once it starts.
Smart people migrate somewhere else because they are more productive there. Usually they even send back more money than they would earn in their home country.
There's a certain self selection in that people who are motivated and brave enough to move counties for a new life are the only ones you see. Back home there are also people who are resigned to their position (or getting money from the ones who have moved). Moving to a developed country from a developing one as someone unskilled takes a lot of effort and determination and luck (for skilled people to a certain extent too), so there's a survivorship bias here.
That's a fair point - selection bias. I thought about that later after I wrote it. I was thinking about people I knew who wanted to move to a country and was successful in doing so, through visa applications, finding jobs with sponsorship or whatever. I realise it's not easy, just trying to play a little devils advocate.
I think you're overestimating the effect that visas have VS other factors.
Take the country's current socio-political situation as an example
Moving to another country is no small thing, and most people would avoid it if they had the chance. The fact that they don't means that the cost of changing things in their country is much higher than the cost of moving their entire families to another.
Indeed the cost of political change only continues to get higher with the brain-drain. But if were really high to begin with, the brain-drain doesn't make that much of a difference.
This really resonates with me. I made a similar move to Germany 4 years ago from a different 3rd world country.
I find it quite sad how so many capable people leave their motherland because of lack of opportunities. The rich countries keep getting the best people from countries worse off, it seems like a vicious cycle.
Brain Drain is just a theory, and a pretty contentious one at that. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the positive effects of emigration can outweigh the negatives.
So you're saying that the net positive migration from countries like Sweden to countries like the US is due to the fact that generally only relatively successful people have the ability to immigrate? And that if all classes of society were able to move freely that the net migration would be in the other direction?
I'm willing to admit that this is possible, but at this point that sounds like a hypothesis than anything approaching a definitive statement about how reality actually works.
It is quite a puzzle. I have spent some time thinking about it however the only solution I reach seems conspiratorial.
To me, it seems obvious that every financially successful (through merit or otherwise) and well educated person you can draw into your country, the better. If such a person makes your country home, the likely-hood of them contributing to the economy is high.
Despite this, emigrating to the US from Western Europe is extremely arduous. Either you are transferred via a multinational facing high competition for the place or you enter the lottery alongside others who won't necessarily contribute as much as you are able to.
The incentive for a nation such as the US seems perfectly apparent from the outside. Grab the best and brightest from countries with excellent education and similar cultural backgrounds in exchange for citizenship. When there is so much demand, why not? Seems to only be a win.
I cannot help but think that western nations have entered some sort of pact (as many SV companies did) in regards to non poaching. Each country wants to keep their best, so some agreement (formal or otherwise) is reached to prevent mass exodus to one.
And there’s another dimension: what if the source country didn’t welcome the emigré? Should someone be forced to contribute to a society if they are not wanted?
I was surplus to requirements in my birth country so I left. Others I know left their birth nations for the new world because they are gay or atheist or a minority and didn’t feel welcome.
Talented or not, these people should be able to apply to move where they want to go.
Most expats do not move away altogether from their country of origin. Labor mobility ("brain drain"), even of skilled professionals, is not a negative; on the contrary, it has huge positive externalities for both the origin and the destination country, even if these don't always show up in obvious monetary terms.
People are the ultimate 'resource' for building wealth, and ensuring that people are free to move around and seek the highest and best opportunities for themselves is absolutely the best policy. (At least if a few safeguards are included to minimize, e.g. social disruption due to large-scale movement of people affecting the local culture and society in unexpected ways. 'Open borders' should never be taken literally, but it's an ideal to move towards gradually.)
Being able to move where the jobs are... aren't really a bad thing. It helps all participants. The only downside is that you might have a bit of a brain drain. Which is not necessarily bad. Those with brains goes to another country where they can work and then being able to send money back home. Poor countries in Europe did this in the big emigration and populated America. Those countries are among the richest in the world now. Both America and Europe benefited by it.
They might not be able to find jobs in their home country which could be a burden on the country. If they move and start working in another country. They might get a job that is harder to recruit to and not only just fill that spot but also pay taxes.
Most studies I have seen claim that the more exposure one have to people of other cultures, the more acceptance it will have. So it is actually the opposite. The more immigrants, the more acceptance there should be.
1. By that logic, everyone who doesn't migrate from such a country is voting in favor of equality over absolute wealth and they constitute a much larger number.
2. To some degree, people do migrate to poorer areas and countries, including those of retirement age, to improve their perceived quality of life which is solely due to greater difference in wealth.
Oh well... time to go back to reality ;)
reply