159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
159 points (89.6% liked)
World News
32317 readers
1012 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Immigration absolutely helps the US economy, because it parasitically siphons all the skilled workers out of other countries that it underdevelops and hoards their labor for itself.
People think remittances help underdeveloped countries, but labor is the superior of capital, losing that skilled labor is never worth the paltry sums that get sent back home. It's just another shape that imperialism takes.
In Canada we heavily base immigration on education. So we're siphoning off the best educated of other countries. I mean this is just fucking those countries.
That's truly one of the worst things about brain drain / educated people moving to the imperial core countries for the high salaries. Global south countries really need educated young people helping to solve their own problems, and Canada and the US rip out their heart and soul.
At least in tech / programming, a good chunk of us are devoting most of our labor time to not just wasteful things, but actively harmful things, like trying to get people to click on ads, or increasing viral engagement.
I mean tbf (at least in my case as an Egyptian) it's not just the high salaries. Maybe Egypt is an extreme case but this country just has no future. The regime isn't just dictatorial; it's also dumb. There's almost no money going to scientific research, the system as a whole was outdated 50 years ago, the military is monopolizing everything and undercutting the market because they can use ~~slave~~ conscript labor and don't pay taxes, etc etc. I'm firmly of the opinion that this is at least partially caused by Britain's unwillingness to fully decolonize in the 1920s and their godawful decolonization in the 1950s, but the fact remains that these countries have a duty to their people that they're not fulfilling, and that's why brain drain happens.
As a living example of said brain drain, salaries were near the bottom of my priority list when I made the decision. I was more concerned about living somewhere where I don't need to worry about being arrested because I said my opinion on the internet (or even just complained about prices) or because I do my prayers at the mosque (I was actually told by my mother to not go to the mosque all the time because I might get arrested. It's that bad). Below that were things like a sane administration that actually cares about things being even just barely functional, a decent education system and academia and the ability to have confidence that the country will actually exist in 20 years. Living in a wildly different country (especially as a Muslim in Japan as is my case (halal food is a pain to get here)) is such a pain you couldn't pay me to do it, but it's hard to turn down actually getting to have a future.
What I wanna say is that it's not just the Global South being undercut by the West; many Global South countries are failing at fulfilling their responsibility towards their constituents, and that's why they're leaving. Now how much the West was involved in creating this situation is another story, but you can't reduce it to just high salaries. Global South governments, as a rule, aren't interesting in solving their own problems. That's why the problem solvers go solve Western rich people's problems.
Egypt is also a useful case study, because the US props up its shitty government. That's also part of how the Global South is underdeveloped, it's a multifaceted machine that sucks out everyone who can help make the country better and gives support and resources to the people making it worse. It's not just legacy from the 20's and 50's, this is an ongoing problem that is created by imperialism.
Also when a Global South government tries to solve its problems, such as through nationalizing resources or land reform, the US buries them under sanctions and attempts to make a regime change. This, too, is part of how imperialism underdevelops the Global South.
I get what you two are saying, but this kind of removes agency from the people doing the moving.
Also: Should people not be allowed to move to another country if they’re “too useful” or “skilled”?
People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please. Our material conditions limit our agency. We go where the jobs are, where the money is, where the possibilities for a better future are. Those are all choices.
But you can't ignore the material conditions that lead to those choices. We aren't just free floating agents in a sea of possibilities.
Never said they or we do
Totally agree
I think you may have misspoke. You said I'm removing their agency. I did no such thing.
Your phrasing of your first comment certainly read that way to me. I didn’t misspeak. If I did not understand your meaning/intention that’s a fair claim.
Hi, one of the people that did the move: they are absolutely right. I got through uni and masters for free at federal universities, my education is amazing. My country gets nothing back because there is no industry there that'd take me and university positions are limited.
I made the bese choice for myself and am aware of how bad my choice is for home
But I agree with you? I’m not sure what we disagree on?
That's not it, but in many cases Western imperialism is involved in the conditions that made these people want to leave in the first place.
I’m not blaming them I am saying they still often make a decision. They are humans who have some control of their lives. That’s not mutually exclusive with saying they are also pressured externally.
The way they were originally described made it sound like they are just pieces on a board incapable of deciding what they want and acting on it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say anymore. What's the point you're trying to make here?
https://kbin.social/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/1000729/-/comment/6477868
Yeah and nobody is saying they don't have agency. You're preaching to... no one?
Plenty of people seem to agree with me so the dismissive attitude is not warranted.
People don't have free agency to move to any country they want. In my view the free agency which you say is being removed never actually existed in the first place.
But I do find it funny that "give me your poor" (yes I'm borrowing from the US) turned into "give me your elite".
I didn’t say people had free agency to go to any country they want. You are presenting a false dichotomy. There are different people with different access to different places with different senses of urgency and for different reasons. Many people make choices on whether or not to immigrate, as well as where to immigrate if they choose to. They have agency, they are not just pawns in this discussion to be shuffled around.
There's no agency in the market. That's the entire point of markets - being independent of a single human's whims and being an equalizing force, the "invisible hand".
And the entire point of communism is getting that agency, having production for the sake of humans rather than humans for the sake of production.
I think you have lost the thread here tbh
No, migration is caused by economics, so it only makes sense to use economics to talk about it. In capitalism, migration follows the market laws, i.e. people migrating to where they expect to be paid more.
I took basic Econ. My point is decisions are multi-faceted. We are not all slaves of the invisible hand 24/7 as it guides our every single decision.
Idk about everyone else, but I think the issue is something like the "oh so you hate capitalism but participate in it?" meme.
An argument for agency can be made either for or against, but for most it boils down to the reality of the society you're trying to exist in. It's just a huge distraction that you've created along with others for anecdotal conversations. This is a US sitting democratic president calling insults to allies during a time-period where conflict is on the rise, while completely negating any resolutions that could impede the death being caused.
We could talk about Biden's own xenophobia with the immigration and border response. His past with the crime bill and other negative legislation. The fact that the entire Democratic Party is xenophobic to anyone outside of their party including the "poor" or progressive strangers they fear so much, like we saw with the recent condemnation of the protests against Palestinian genocide.
Instead you've made 10+ comments bringing up other countries to blame, links back to other comments in this thread, boasting about taking a basic Econ class and proclaiming you've won because a couple of people upvoted you. I understand your argument, it's just not valid at this time or during this discussion and you're trying to force it with hostility till people "get it".
I am not forcing it with hostility. I made a broader point about treating people like pawns on a board and I got lectured about econ 101. Yeah I got a little snippy with them, sure I could've not been that way. But these responses are so absurd, they leave no nuance or middleground and keep telling me I am either saying things I didn't say or put up a lazy strawman as if it responds to what I said.
Also notice not one person wants to acknowledge that there is this implication people have some obligation to not leave their country as it means they are participating in "brain drain."
I get what you're saying, I really do. But the fact is people got all prickly when I tried to introduce nuance. Of course economic factors heavily drive our decisions. I'm not sure where I said anything remotely to the contrary, so I'm getting irritated.
There's an issue without you saying not because you don't know econ 101, but because you do know it. Because you shift the focus from the systems (global imperialism) to the individuals ("so you shouldn't be allowed to migrate?"). What causes migration is, objectively, unequal development of different countries caused by imperialism and inherent to the market system, and not "personal decisions". That means shifting the talk to "personal decisions" is pointless and harmful.
It's like going "oh but you voluntarily choose to buy/sell" and blaming all your economic problems on yourself.
I didn’t shift it. I introduced nuance. Nothing I said denied the impact of imperialism/economic realities. Show me where I said anything like that. I have written several responses that clearly indicate I know those are major factors. At this point responses like yours just mean you are choosing to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote/put words in my mouth and that you are ignoring anything else I wrote that could possibly clarify the situation.
Feels like I’m back on Reddit with this nonsense.
It also has a chicken-egg problem. What if the indicators of talent or skill aren't apparent because of abysmally poor living and educational conditions? The lack of opportunity in many developing countries is such that people will be less successful and appear less talented simply because their country has limited ways for them to demonstrate it.
I mean that's the whole point of the US higher education system, excepting the Republicans (with the help of Democrats) broke the parts of our immigration system that is supposed to take advantage of educating the world.
Did you just say people moving to the US for a better life are a part of imperialism?
Don't misunderstand, the people moving to the US are blameless. Imperialism works by siphoning up all of the skilled labor around the world for itself in order to make life better for people within the imperial core, and this is part of how the imperial nations underdevelop other countries. People get educations in their home countries (often at the government's expense) and then they take that education out of the country to put it to use in the US (or France or Canada etc). They're just going where the jobs are, though, that's not their fault at all.
Except where there's little opportunity to utilize the highly skilled labor. They are going abroad anyway to find job opportunities befitting of their skill set and the highest bidder. Doesn't matter if the US or EU took them, they're leaving because the local opportunity doesn't exist.
Yes, and the people who could develop that local opportunity aren't there. They all leave as soon as they can.
That's why I said they're underdeveloped countries. They're not "developing" in truth, but are being kept from becoming developed. How do you think that happens? In part it happens because of the IMF giving predatory loans and then imposing austerity on the people when the government can't pay their loans back, but it also happens because labor is the superior of capital and these countries are losing skilled labor.
I am not blaming them for leaving their countries. I am blaming underdevelopment, which is a product of imperialism.
And who maintains the status quo, that there is no local opportunity so they have to coon out to FIVE-EYES nations?