On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 09:47, Andrew Ho wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2004, Tim Churches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 08:01, Calle Hedberg wrote: > ... > > > Add to that the fact that UK, Canada, Australia and other countries > > > systematically poach doctors and nurses from SA (we have over 30,000 > > > vacant nurse positions now) - the impact on workload should be > > > obvious. > > > > Yes, and it is a totally unconscionable trade in human resources. > > Calle and Tim, > > Why is it "unconscionable" to freely trade human resources?
It is unconscionable because the rich countries do not pay a fair price for the very valuable "human resources" they are encouraging (and helping) to migrate to their countries. For example, it probably costs the South African government (and hence the South African people) between US$50,000 and US$150,000 to train a medical student through to being a specialist physician or surgeon. When the UK, Canada or Australia recruits such a person to work in the UK, Canada or Australia, do they reimburse the South African government for the cost of that training, plus the much greater opportunity cost of having to train a replacement over a ten year period? No, they don't. That situation seems unconscionable to me, especially when the relative need for trained health staff in South Africa is so much greater than in the UK, Canada and Australia. > ----- begin quote > The German free-market economist Wilhehm Roepke once suggested that > "modern nationalism and collectivism have, by the restriction of > migration, perhaps come nearest to the servile state ..... Man can hardly > be reduced more to a mere wheel in the clockwork of the national > collectivist state than being deprived of his freedom to move.... " > ----- end quote from "In Defense of Free Migration", Richard Ebeling, The > Future of Freedom Foundation http://www.fff.org/freedom/0691b.asp Sorry, all that laissez-faire, totally free-market, right-wing libertarianism stuff is wasted on me. I unapologetically believe that the state has a role and responsibility to help redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. > > It's okay for rich countries to fight amongst themselves for trained > > health staff, > > I see. There are different kinds human beings: those born to "rich" > countries and those born to "poor" countries? That's the unfortunate but undeniable reality of the world today. The key is for governments and individuals to act in ways which reduce those disparities, not increase them. > And it is _harmful_ to offer > the same opportunities to individuals from "poor" countries? It is harmful for governments of rich nations to actively recruit and to facilitate the migration of desperately needed, expensively-trained individuals from poor countries. > As we all know, major motivation for free software is to increase freedom > and lower costs. If vendor lock-in impedes progress and adds to > information costs, country-of-birth lock-in carries even higher human and > economic costs. Neither Calle or I, or anyone else, have suggested that people be prevented from migration. The argument is against active recruitment and facilitated, preferential immigration programmes for skilled health care personnel from poorer countries to richer countries. It is morally wrong. -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0
