| ▲ | rayiner an hour ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> and bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain. That's a pretty big qualifier! > The damage to those countries from losing talent is smaller than the benefits to the immigrant, their new country, and ultimately all of humanity Isn't it the opposite? Creating wealth and technology in India helps a billion quite poor people. Creating wealth in the U.S. helps 300 million already rich people. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | airstrike an hour ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Except you can't create Google in India. Google isn't minted by divine inspiration hitting a couple of smart guys in a garage. It's created by an entire ecosystem that allows a project like that to be conceived and executed in such a way that has benefited the entire world, including the poor in India. It's a big qualifier, but like I said, it's not zero-sum. No economist will argue that limiting skilled labor immigration (or any immigration, really!) is an optimal policy for improving the lives of the poor elsewhere. It just doesn't work that way. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | digitaltrees 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The innovations immigrants created in the UK during the Industrial Revolution made everyone wealthier. The innovations made by Immigrants in in Silicon Valley have made the world more wealthy. And it was in part due to the concentrated talent pool that made it possible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||