Timmy Elsewhere

At the ASI.

No, the brain drain doesn\’t harm poor countries….and we shouldn\’t worry about it even if it did.

7 thoughts on “Timmy Elsewhere”

  1. So, there is no problem if we cherry pick the capable and the middle class, leaving the unable and uneducated to organise their own way and country.

    Just like there is no problem if we export all the menial jobs to cheaper countries and then are surprised why our ‘working class’ turns feral and lives on alms.

    And for your next post, you will describe how you improved the farm by selling your best breeding stock, leaving behind the runts and how it all turned out to be a raving success afterwards, after all, why discriminate, runts are just as good as anyone else and whosoever says different is a nasty mean capitalist.

    🙂

  2. “Just like there is no problem if we export all the menial jobs to cheaper countries and then are surprised why our ‘working class’ turns feral and lives on alms.”

    It’s quite solvable: Soylent Green.

  3. @Hexe Froschbein

    Firstly we don’t cherry pick. The migrants make their own decision to emmigrate. Secondly, such migrants will have close connections with their home country and they tend to send remittances back to their family. Don’t forget we are talking about economic migrants who leave their country to get a better job because their country can’t provide them with one. Secondly, a country does not empty of all capable people. When enough migrants have left their will be a demand for the ones left.

    With regards the menial jobs. As economic migrants come out, outsourcing goes in to the cheaper country. As the poor in that country get jobs, their pay gradually goes up.

    In terms of our own runts, they can retrain to new jobs that get created. For instance, many now work on telephones, or other service industries.

  4. OTOH, I also believe that immigration is a hit when it doesn’t turn into population displacement — that is, you study and work in another country for 10-20 years(say) and then return back home to start your family, bringing what you learnt and earnt back to your community.

    This would indeed be a win-win all round indeed, and I think the only real help for developing countries who need capable people far more than they need money, which in itself is useless if there is no-one to use it efficiently.

    But the bottom line is, people are not stand-alone components that can be exchanged readily between cultures and nations.

  5. The reason that so many talented people leave poorer countries is either despite their talents they can’t get on, or their government does indeed behave as if it owned them. Either way, they generate value far below what they are capable of.

    In most poor countries, nepotism trumps all, leaving unconnected but worthy people underemployed. What would you do in their place?

  6. But the bottom line is, people are not stand-alone components that can be exchanged readily between cultures and nations.

    The oil industry would suggest otherwise: when a job needs filling, they couldn’t care less where you come from.

  7. “Firstly we don’t cherry pick. The migrants make their own decision to emmigrate. Secondly, such migrants will have close connections with their home country and they tend to send remittances back to their ”

    Yes you do cherry pick, because you open up an opportunity that lures them with easy visas. It is their rich, educated people that come here, not their poor. True they are improving their personal lot, but in comparison they were already very wealthy (also compare the fallacy of there being a poverty line you can pin to a percentage of the median income)

    Sending money back home is of no use (see further above), poor countries need useful people, not useless money.

    Nepotism and other abuses of power happens when it’s tolerated by the society it infests.. It always continues until the host stops it, no-one can help here, because it’s the hosts weakness to the parasites attack that causes the problem, not the parasites existence. If you destroy one Mugabe, 10 others are ready to pop up, what has to be destroyed is the ‘job opportunity’, not the aspiring candidates.

    —-

    “In terms of our own runts, they can retrain to new jobs that get created. For instance, many now work on telephones, or other service industries.”

    I’m not talking about people that can be trained on the hop to man telephones or do whatever new stuff comes their way, including getting rich contracting on oil rigs.

    I’m talking about the vast bulk of IQ of 70-90 people, who take time to learn anything properly as long as it’s not too complex and properly supervised. A lot of those folks cannot easily read/write/count either (if at all) and no matter how hard they’ll try it’ll stay that way.

    There are LOTS of them, it just isn’t polite to tell the truth here and it doesn’t help either that they are not the most endearing/deserving members of society. Still if we’re going to get them off the dole, they need jobs they are able to do, about 5-6 million of them.

    This is the dilemma, we managed to make our world more complex and efficient than a large number of us can handle and we have thus made part of humanity redundant.

    Until we solve this core problem in our system, the left will always have a serious and valid rallying point for their well-meaning but idiotic ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *