There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don't have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you're a California taxpayer, you're paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
You're taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I'm sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is 'tricking' people into having empathy to cause 'damage' to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it's in everyone's best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
As the link I posted notes:
Emigration can alleviate unemployment in origin countries by reducing the labor pool and decreasing competition for scarce jobs. Between 2000 and 2007, unemployment rates in Central and Eastern Europe dropped by as much as 50 percent, in part because of increasing migrant outflows from these countries.
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
Successful emigration of skilled workers can sometimes encourage more investment in education, potentially raising a country’s overall skill level. Migration opportunities associated with nursing led to the development of a private education system in the Philippines that provides low-income women with career opportunities. Large numbers of nurses remain in country after completing their education, and as a result, the Philippines has more trained nurses per capita than some wealthier countries, such as Greece and Malaysia.
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just... not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries?
Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That's... that's what the quote is getting at.
Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too?
... yes. That's why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.
So, you're really not talking about permanent immigration, you're talking about training. Good.
So, you’re really not talking about permanent immigration, you’re talking about training.
... no, that's literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.
Countries with impoverished populations are likely to invest money on education. USAiD can help them do that.
You're really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it's used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.
I do get it and I would welcome such a decision. I just don't believe it's forthcoming
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don't have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you're a California taxpayer, you're paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
So now you are admitting that the video discusses American immigration and economics, great. Glad we could clear up that much. Perhaps the next step should be "How many of those people want to move to the US?" or "What are the effects of emigration on the countries who they are emigrating from?"
You're taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I'm sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is 'tricking' people into having empathy to cause 'damage' to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it's in everyone's best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
As the link I posted notes:
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just... not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?
Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That's... that's what the quote is getting at.
... yes. That's why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.
So, you're really not talking about permanent immigration, you're talking about training. Good.
... no, that's literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.
Countries with impoverished populations are likely to invest money on education. USAiD can help them do that.
You're really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it's used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.
I do get it and I would welcome such a decision. I just don't believe it's forthcoming