On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: ... > There is a loss of British, Australian, Austrian and > others who also move to the USA for example. This is > promoted by the USA too. The number of British > scientists who have been recruited in such a manner to > the US is well known. Do you think the British have > not lost?
Tim and Nandalal, Looking at it a different way, both British and U.S. (and the entire human race) gain when individuals migrate and maximize their opportunity to contribute their talents. This is analogous to free software developers who abandon one project and re-direct their time and energy to a different project. > The other problem is that the skilled medical or others in the poorer > countries are not given the facilities to work. They can be thoroughly > frustrated as a result. Their knowledge and skill is NOT appreciated in > their own country. They maybe too qualified and skilled for the country > of their origin. They try really hard to do something useful but nobody > cares to help - particularly the administrators. Right, they should have a choice to migrate if they so choose. Employers and societies should freely compete for the time and energy of their workers - this is a feature of free market economy. Organizations (e.g. countries, cities) exist to serve their members, not the other way around. > They can be lost to their own citizens. What if some other country can > make use of them to help their own people, and they want to have a > better health care system, and can and will give them the conditions > they need to work to the best of their skill and knowledge? Must they be > lost to everyone? Well said. This is why barriers to free flow of human resources hurt everyone in the end. > Take away migration. Many of them do NOT want to migrate, It takes lots of work to migrate. However, sometimes there are sufficient reasons for people to do so. > They want to work w few years in another country which will allow them > to improve their skills and knowledge and also earn enough to save > something and go back to their own country. True, that can happen too. A key question is _who_ should decide where and when to move? > This is good for both countries. If this is encouraged and made easier > to do, but migration is not, then neither side will lose. My view is that it is up to each society to attract and keep their productive memebers. A permanent migration can become a temporary one if sufficient incentives are given to recruit the individuals back to their country of origin. Similarly, a temporary migration can become permanent. Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
