The Socialistic Shit-Case

[lucy]

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

[js207]

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

It seems clear enough, but my objection remains: it is not "draining resources" for them to leave - rather, the countries are failing to attract and retain people they need. It's something I see here, which is probably why it irritates me so much: people talk of a "brain drain" when people like me (the IT profession has been particularly affected, for obvious reasons) and talk of creating obstacles to us leaving, rather than identifying and fixing the root problem: rather than changing the country's laws and systems so we *can't* leave as easily, change them so we don't *want* to leave any more!

(Companies occasionally fall into this trap, too, regarding their customers and staff as an entitlement to be prevented from leaving, rather than people on whom their existence depends, people they need to attract and convince to stay voluntarily. Long term, that never works.)

[lucy]

Fair enough, of course much of the world would be a much better place if people hadn't to leave their home for whatever reason. I'm agree completely with you.
But i was referring to Thorne saying "we send doctors" when in fact it's exactly vice versa. In the end it's poor countries financing the education of doctors and nurses and other professionals for very rich countries.
Ok, now you can say "well, that's global competition". That's not exactly good in my opinion, but i guess it's not completely wrong either. What is wrong, though, is that the first world drains all that educated personnel and then goes around bragging what good guys we all are when we send some relief goods or the odd doc when a catastrophe has occurred or people die of cholera or leprosy. That's hipocrisy at it's best.