Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
noahpinion.blog
Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#2Counterpoints:
In EU (and generally in whole developed world) the agriculture is heavily subsidised and it dwarfs any market effects.
Other natural resources extraction is capital intensive and thus usually owned by foreign investors thus profit goes directly out of the country.
Also, how he describes foreign trade worked so easily maybe in 1990s. Now the IP is much stringently enforced. And it is almost all owned by American corporations.
Governance issues are mentioned offhand but these are major issue. EU tries to offset regional differences with cohesion funds, but increasingly, there's sheer lack of competent staff in receiving countries to actually use the money as intended.
Network effects are completely omitted. Imagine your whole cohort and support network just vanishes.
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#3Counterpoints: In EU (and generally in whole developed world) the agriculture is heavily subsidised and it dwarfs any market effects. Other natural resources extraction is capital intensive and thus usually owned by foreign investors thus profit goes directly out of the country. Also, how he describes foreign trade worked so easily maybe in 1990s. Now the IP is much stringently enforced. And it is almost all owned by…
This doesn't really change the fundamental argument
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#4[dead]
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#5Counterpoints: In EU (and generally in whole developed world) the agriculture is heavily subsidised and it dwarfs any market effects. Other natural resources extraction is capital intensive and thus usually owned by foreign investors thus profit goes directly out of the country. Also, how he describes foreign trade worked so easily maybe in 1990s. Now the IP is much stringently enforced. And it is almost all owned by…
This doesn't really change the fundamental argument
The fundamental reality is that while the countries where people emigrate from are developing and there are some positive effects, they are still lagging behind.
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#6A weird article that isn’t worth reading in my opinion.
> simple models can’t explain complexities of the real world. Nevertheless here’s several simple models that support my claim that brain drain is good, as well as other pros and cons that the models don’t consider, of which I will subjectively emphasise those that support my conclusion. Finally a list of studies about brain drain (in very specific situations that probably aren’t applicable to most countries) that definitely aren’t cherry picked
Re: Why skilled immigration (usually) benefits both countries
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really change the fundamental argument
The fundamental reality is that while the countries where people emigrate from are developing and there are some positive effects, they are still lagging behind.