[ominous]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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?

[time_to_smile]

To answer your questions

> Does brain drain not exist?

Of course, I've seen it within regions of the US. Imagine how insane it would be to say that NY city should resist hiring workers from NJ because it hurts small NJ towns. My experience is that the root cause of brain drain is the regional government, keeping talented individuals there only stifles the growth of those individuals, it doesn't improve the region. In fact we see this locally a lot, many more people do move back to NJ from NYC than do to PA from NYC since the former tends to have a lot more to offer returners than the latter.

> Do you want to exfiltrate the young generation from worse off countries?

Of course! From what I've seen either two paths are followed. When local governments have no plans to improve the country they lose all their talent and those individuals succeed. The other path is the China/India path, they improve their economies through exchange eventually become attractive and more youth return and newer generations are more likely to stay.

> Do you want to incentivize young workers to leave their native countries instead of whatever else you must think young workers can contribute there?

Absolutely! It's one of the reasons the US has been able to rise to the level of technological success it has. Most of our greatest scientists where fleeing countries in decay. My experience both locally and globally is that talent staying in an area that is in decline only hurts the talent. Typically it is the governments of failing countries that try to halt immigration out first.

> 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?

Yes! I've worked in poor US towns and I always encouraged the best and brightest students to go to a major metro area, expand their skills and get paid more. Would you not encourage a brilliant student from an area of the UK in decline to head off to London to further their career? If the poor town shows improvement they can return and improve the town and live with their families, if the town does not improve then they at least don't waste their skills.

> 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?

I'm not sure the logic of this question. Again, I live in the US where nearly the entire population has their origins in immigration at one point in time. We've never had a challenge with raising the next generation while being open to immigration. Our biggest problem is not immigrants coming in, but jobs going out (as far as manufacturing goes). Your critique of "abandonment" also doesn't make sense given your earlier points. I have plenty of Chinese friends who have stayed in the US and start the path to citizenship and plenty who have gone back to take leading roles in Chinese companies. I consider both of these paths to be a net win.

> Do want to continue to degrade the social fabric by insisting in economic advancement instead of fixing what leads to lack of workers?

I think by definition nobody wants to "degrade the social fabric", and I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean you don't want foreign people mixing with your locals? Again, as an American my experience is that diverse ethnic influence is precisely what makes communities stronger. One of the favorite parts of my neighborhood is the Polish butcher (I have no Polish background), I love being able to go to a Chinese neighborhood and not hear a word of English for an entire afternoon.

Can you point to a single example of a country that has halted immigration and "fixed what leads to a lack of workers?"

It seems like the UK is experimenting with tighter controls but from what I've witnessed it's not going great.

[ominous]

> Of course, I've seen it within regions of the US. Imagine how insane it would be to say that NY city should resist hiring workers from NJ because it hurts small NJ towns.

Yes, how insane would it be if some entity or some coordination between the two states existed that would allow both to prosper, in the eventuality that it became true that New Jersey human capital was leaking into New York? Not too insane, I imagine. Do you want New York not to feel responsible for the incentives it creates in the region? Or New Jersey to feel happy to leak generations? Maybe New York could but New Jersey and just use it a breeding grounds. Maybe administer their schools and hospitals.

> My experience is that the root cause of brain drain is the regional government.

The regional government of New Jersey did not not make New York the center of the world. It's a feedback loop.

> keeping talented individuals there only stifles the growth of those individuals

Find a use for them. It's people that could build community bonds. Would you say the person with the best potential should be placed where they can enact the most impact in the world? How about every 25 years we scout the world for the latest litter of humans and shuffle them about to where they can have the most impact? Sounds like a great reductio ad absurdum, we could take all the "talented individuals" (borderline eugenics here, be careful) and just shove them into the best pipelines. People are just talents, are they? They are not. It's not a closed matter. That countries bordering (lol, India?) the UK leak good people is something for India to prevent and for the UK to notice what it signals to the locals. Not to be ignored and up to the free market, free flow of capital (human or not).

> [exfiltrate?] Of course!

Another path is to understand that things create feedback loops, and the feedback loop of "people leave" is "governments have no plans for people that leave". You seem to have it down to "let's ignore the present and let things even out later". It's an answer, in that letting a fire burn down is an answer to a fire. It's giving up. Just be clear in your answers: "everyone, listen, we do not care about your particular situations and your particular worries today, because tomorrow someone will have managed to reach the future and live there, and it will be good for the economy and for them, maybe. Die out, emigrate, I can't care any less."

> [incentivize young workers to leave their native countries?] My experience both locally and globally is that talent staying in an area that is in decline only hurts the talent. Typically it is the governments of failing countries that try to halt immigration out first.

I mentioned nothing that implied I would halt immigration. I raise concerns I hoped you would agree with. Instead, you welcome them. Your experience is the experience of a factory. Inputs, outputs, time passes. Life is not a factory, it's the shared day to day. Yes, let's make everyone believe the standard is to move around, not to make places livable.

> Would you not encourage a brilliant student from an area of the UK in decline to head off to London to further their career?

One person. We discuss incentives at the scale of countries. The purpose of the area of the UK in decline is not to decline.

> if the town does not improve then they at least don't waste their skills.

Yes, why would anyone waste their skills by living with their families. Maybe people should even be made to forget they have families, if it dampens their individual intuition (lol) to go where they can best be exploited by whatever is built there.

> Again, I live in the US

Ok.

> I think by definition nobody wants to "degrade the social fabric", and I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean you don't want foreign people mixing with your locals?

You managed to include the implication of xenophobia, leading me to conclude you think you are replying to a brexiter/maga/casteist/generic xenophobe monster, which I do not consider myself to be and have not given any hint of being, and which is not the only kind of voice that would raise these concerns. The social fabric I meant was 1) the one in the countries of origin that lose their young to the economic advancement of the UK and 2) the UK's, that sees the arrival of young workers as a solution. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34067699

> Can you point to a single example of a country that has halted immigration and "fixed what leads to a lack of workers?"

I repeat that I suggested no halting. I raised the concerns I believe reasonable to have. You disagree with those concerns and call them reasons to proceed with importing young workers.

Yes. Let's just proceed. And we can't ever move fast enough.