Przejdź do głównej zawartości
< Wspomóż Petroskowo > Donate any crypto! Donate crypto via Onion

New data from 99 developing countries challenges conventional wisdom in development policy. People whose labour has higher returns at home are more likely to migrate: https://voxdev.org/topic/migration-urbanisation/who-migrates-developing-countries
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •
your help in digesting this information is welcome :)
in reply to Ipa

A thinking meat
A thinking meat
• •
@ipa haha ;) in short - data can be interpreted in a way to see that migrants are earning more in their home country than those people who stay. One reason for that - you need to be able to migrate and poor people usually cannot do it financially. Important implication might be that governments are making policies on wrong premise (more people earn at home - the less likely they are going to migrate, which is not true according to the research).
@Ipa
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •
so is the logic conclusion of this - to better fight migration the government should aim making more people poorer? :)
Ten wpis został zedytowany (3 tygodnie temu)
in reply to Ipa

8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
•
And it works, together with substantial obstacles, raised in various aspects.
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •
if the logic depends, it's not the logic, but an interpretation. Isn't it? ,)
in reply to Ipa

A thinking meat
A thinking meat
• •
@ipa @8petros haha, no - your reasoning is sound, but there is an implicit assumption in your conclusion that reducing migration should be the goal of the government.
@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] @Ipa
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •
@8petros it's not a conclusion, it's a question, that IF the government has a migration reduction policy (and many of them have, as you may know), does this research found that an effective way to solve that problem could the one we discuss about? True or false?
@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to Ipa

A thinking meat
A thinking meat
• •

@ipa @8petros heh, not that simple, what it says, that if your goal is to reduce migration, and you think that developing a better economy in a country is a solution for that (i.e. "why move if life is good here?") - it seems that the data does not support the case. Other ways have to be considered.

While it is true that many governments have migration reduction policy - I believe (and I certainly hope) that it is just a proxy to deal with the real issue: preserve (local) economic stability.

@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] @Ipa
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •
@8petros you are right, but the mental exercise was about different paet of the equation. Nevermind, you both are wonderful!
@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to Ipa

A thinking meat
A thinking meat
• •
@ipa @8petros same to u ;) about the exercise: considering asymmetric causality (I believe this is the case here): if the economy gets better - you get more migrants, but if it gets worse - you still might get more migrants. i thought your aim was to show that it is logical to conclude that to worsen economy is a way to reduce migration and my point is that from formal logic point of view it is not possible to have 100% certainty for that. If there was a different exercise - sorry :)
@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] @Ipa
in reply to A thinking meat

Ipa
Ipa
• •

@8petros i already feel spaming my mastodon feed.

But by involving probabilities, you can apply the same statement to any model, and while it's true, the key point is faded away.

This is why I always hate weather forecasts like it will be raining with 60% chance. Should it mean I have to take an umbrella 6 times out of 10? Or it's an excuse that 6 out of 10 they fail on on prediction? :)

@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to Ipa

A thinking meat
A thinking meat
• •

@ipa @8petros well, we have not involved probabilities, but causality mechanisms. I am not sure about what fading key point you are talking about :)

I hate weather forecasts too, so I bring umbrella only for my wife (if she insists) ;))

@8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] @Ipa
in reply to A thinking meat

8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
•

In terms of comparative benefit (material and otherwise), migration decision needs some premises:
- Enough expendable energy just to contemplate and plan it.
- Expected increase of wellness due to migration. The "overhead" burden of migration should be less than expected increase of wellness.

Case A: a programmer
- Well paid compared to local average. Has some margin of resources.
- Low paid compared to abroad position. Has higher expectations.
- However, can work remotely.

Case B: a teacher
- Moderately paid, at best. Not much reserves.
- No major increase expected unless change of occupation.
- Better social status at home.

Having said that, the core of the problem is rather in migration barriers, interacting with free flow of material resources.

⇧