Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is currently in vogue to applaud Diversity as an element in furthering at least social, if not economic development. But one could argue that Diverwity clearly has a limited set of beneficiaries -- the already-wealthy magnet economies that attract the best and brightest from the Third World. But what as been left behind?
Would the global economy be healthier as a whole if there had been impediments to the south-to-north migration? From a poor country, emigration requires a considerable dedicated effort by people already possessing intellect and talent and maybe even education. If a poor nation is constantly depleted of these promising human resources, who is left at home to do the work of development?
Even worse, the best and brightest from the third world get shipped of to universities in America or Europe, and then never go back home to apply what they have learned to their home country, but only use it to further enrich the already affluent..
If the brightest, most gifted, most energetic and determined young people have all emigrated, it might be great for the restaurant districts and the music scene in Toronto or Amsterdam or Sydney, but how does that address economic disparity in the rest of the world?
It is currently in vogue to applaud Diversity as an element in furthering at least social, if not economic development. But one could argue that Diverwity clearly has a limited set of beneficiaries -- the already-wealthy magnet economies that attract the best and brightest from the Third World. But what as been left behind?
Would the global economy be healthier as a whole if there had been impediments to the south-to-north migration? From a poor country, emigration requires a considerable dedicated effort by people already possessing intellect and talent and maybe even education. If a poor nation is constantly depleted of these promisine human resources, who is left at home to do the work of development?
Even worse, the best and brightest from the third world get shipped of to universities in America or Europe, and then never go back home to apply what they have learned to their home country.
If the brightest, most gifted, most energetic young people have all emigrated, it might be great for the restaurant districts and the music scene in Toronto or Amsterdam or Sydney, but how does that address economic disparity in the rest of the world?
Maybe the countries you refer to should try to increase their own diversity to counter this trend? Seems to have worked pretty well for the GCC.
Immigrants to the North are sometimes derided as though they are rats leaving a sinking ship. But really, I don't think you can blame them for seeking better opportunities and freedoms for themselves and their families.
The problem is larger than economic. It has a lot to do with the corrupt, repressive regimes in the Southern countries that compel these immigrants to leave. The regimes don't care about the brain drain, because it eliminates a social class that might challenge their hold on power and create some sort of resistance to the status quo. This leaves the dictators with the poor and uneducated that they can control with an iron fist. That problem isn't economic, it's political. It takes the support of large numbers of people to overthrow corrupt governments. The intellectual elites can't do it themselves. If they're in an untenable situation, they are basically forced to leave. The dictators don't care about the development of their countries or the betterment of the people as a group. They want to plunder whatever is there to take and live in luxury in their gated mansions.
Anyway, a lot of immigrants to the North send remittances back to their relatives in the home country, so they help their home countries in that way (remittances count for a significant amount of money globally).
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-01-2014 at 05:52 PM..
Reason: No longer in history forum
If a poor nation is constantly depleted of these promising human resources, who is left at home to do the work of development?
Even worse, the best and brightest from the third world get shipped of to universities in America or Europe, and then never go back home to apply what they have learned to their home country, but only use it to further enrich the already affluent..
Aren't the education seeking people coming to the west from poor nations looking to better themselves? Do you want us to believe that someone immigrates to the west for the purpose of enriching those already in the west? "Growing up in my impoverished village, all I ever dreamed was one day coming to America and increasing the profits of some large corporation."
Do you want us to believe that someone immigrates to the west for the purpose of enriching those already in the west? "Growing up in my impoverished village, all I ever dreamed was one day coming to America and increasing the profits of some large corporation."
Did I say that? If I did, it's been so many years since I posted that comment, I've forgotten it. Refresh my memory.
My question (in this thread, anyway) is about the EFFECT of the intellectual diaspora on the source countries, not the motive of those who participate, which is obviously to improve their own prospects, which is what makes it so easy to entice them, and for them to make the choice.
Mod cut.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-01-2014 at 05:53 PM..
Reason: Personal attack.
It is currently in vogue to applaud Diversity as an element in furthering at least social, if not economic development. But one could argue that Diverwity clearly has a limited set of beneficiaries -- the already-wealthy magnet economies that attract the best and brightest from the Third World. But what as been left behind?
Would the global economy be healthier as a whole if there had been impediments to the south-to-north migration? From a poor country, emigration requires a considerable dedicated effort by people already possessing intellect and talent and maybe even education. If a poor nation is constantly depleted of these promising human resources, who is left at home to do the work of development?
Even worse, the best and brightest from the third world get shipped of to universities in America or Europe, and then never go back home to apply what they have learned to their home country, but only use it to further enrich the already affluent..
If the brightest, most gifted, most energetic and determined young people have all emigrated, it might be great for the restaurant districts and the music scene in Toronto or Amsterdam or Sydney, but how does that address economic disparity in the rest of the world?
When diversity says let's keep the talent pool wide open ---it is good
When it mutates to taking people not because they are smart and talented but because that group is under represented in our pool ---not good
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-01-2014 at 05:55 PM..
Reason: Correct the word "because" - text speak not allowed in this forum
Survival of the fittest has always been how this world has worked, and how we came to dominate the planet.
Diversity is directly contradictory to survival of the fittest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
