[tomhoward]

There's an implicit assumption in the article and the comments here that "brain drain the world" is a free lunch.

But does anyone think through to the end-game of that? That when you drain the most smart/productive people away from every other country, all those countries become less wealthy and more dysfunctional, leading to societal decline, poverty, resentment, radicalisation, war, etc?

Aside from anything else, the other countries become less able to trade on good terms, and thus less able to buy US products/services. And so it becomes a self-defeating policy long-term.

Good economists (and to be honest I don't know of many these days) know that there are no free lunches. We need to put as much effort into helping every other country develop and thrive - and by doing that we'll create many more customers for the products/services produced in our own countries, and everyone can end up richer.

After writing this I wonder even if the economic and political dysfunction we're seeing in so much of the world as actually the inevitable consequence of decades of brain-draining, rather than an indication of the need for more of it.

[jgilias]

I wouldn’t worry about this too much. Brain drain, despite the name, is not really a zero-sum game. The people who move rarely lose all contact with the host country. They gain invaluable experience, know-how, and contacts that some of them eventually bring back to the host country.

I know of more than one example where someone has been “brain-drained” to the states, who has subsequently moved back to start a successful business. Sometimes leveraging gained contacts directly, sometimes leveraging the newfound experience and knowledge.

Whether this works out this way depends on how open the world (or at least the respective countries between each other) is when it comes to movement of people, money, and trade.

[energy123]

The only reason the Chinese solar industry exists is because of so called "brain drain" from China to Australia and Germany.

The reality is far less zero sum. These Chinese scientists learned about and contributed to solar research overseas, and some of them went back to China and made China wealthier.

[tomhoward]

Yes of course but when articles like this (and the general policy/assumption in the US) just blankly asserts that we can just “brain-drain” our way back to prosperity and dominance, there isn’t much nuanced consideration of the limits, caveats and tradeoffs inherent to that approach, which need much more than an HN comment or brief blog post to fully explore.

[Mordisquitos]

> The people who move rarely lose all contact with the host country. They gain invaluable experience, know-how, and contacts that some of them eventually bring back to the host country.

How many Europeans who emigrated to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries returned to their countries after making it big in America? Is any of Europe's economic development since then attributable to them?

[rsanek]

> We need to put as much effort into helping every other country develop and thrive - and by doing that we'll create many more customers for the products/services produced in our own countries, and everyone can end up richer.

this was the logic in letting eg China into the WTO and allowing them to become such a big trading partner. turns out, this doesn't necessarily result in liberalization (see Germany's experience with Russia for another example).

we should only be seeking to shift trade from repressive regimes to democracies, not working with everyone equally.

[axkdev]

I do not disagree with your point, except, given the current state of US, it is hard to describe it as not repressive. I understand it's a spectrum. I checked on Wikipedia - abortion is legal in China. That's one right that many US women don't have. Which does not mean that China is a free country, but just to gain some perspective. The notion of some place being a dictatorship was many times weaponized to launch invasions and economic sanctions that left that place broken and impoverished.

[ruszki]

Working less with China makes the possibility of a war higher. Obama wanted to have a trading framework which prevents a mutual degradation of trade on America’s term, but Trump didn’t want that, and Americans voted to this again.

I think genie is out of the bottle, and it’s too late to prevent it. But the logical step would have been what Obama wanted. Now, we have dark times ahead of us. These forced shifts in trade just make the process to these bad times quicker. Nobody really benefits them, just make the war a possibility sooner. If not a full out war, but a new Cold War at least.

[foven]

More to the point, when you write an article like this foretelling the doom of the american economy, why would you think you are able to brain drain any country? What stops the countries you are trying to drain from offering better incentives to stay?

[lqet]

Also consider that the US is now threatening direct (even neighboring) allies with military intervention (Canada, Denmark). It is very hard to drain brain which considers the US an enemy country.

Meanwhile, China is playing the long game and is building infrastructure projects all over the world, including the EU [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelje%C5%A1ac_Bridge

[flyinglizard]

At this point in time, US is the global leader in personal freedoms, culture and financial opportunities. These are the things people are looking to immigrate towards.

Personal freedoms can't be manufactured. They are a product of the underlying system governing a country. The US has very strong institutions and legal framework in the form of the constitution (again, at this point in time; I expect the current admin to weaken those, either directly or by eroding public trust in them).

Culture is something that's very hard to replicate. The language of the world in English, Hollywood is American, Hip hop is American and I can't really think of any other country in a position to globally influence and create an ethos in the same way US can. You can call it branding. US fully controls the societal narrative around the world.

Financial opportunities is the easiest one to manufacture (see Dubai). You can give incentives left and right and in few years attract investors and high earners. But without #1 and #2, you'll just attract transients, not people who want to become influential citizens.

[matwood]

> What stops the countries you are trying to drain from offering better incentives to stay?

Nothing! And that is sort of the point. If the US can provide freedom, rule of law, education, good salary, etc... and the other countries do the same to keep the best at home that's a win for everyone.

[elisharobinson]

this assumes that a smart person would move to US 100% of the time. given the bipolar nature of US i doubt 100% of smart people would move .

[tomhoward]

I worry that all the replies to my comment will be claims about what percentage of the smartest and most productive people will want to move to the US in practice, thereby avoiding debating the central point.

The first reply asserted that my comment was based on a “ridiculous premise” without addressing the principle.

[braiamp]

> the other countries become less able to trade on good terms, and thus less able to buy US products/services

There is a Kurzgezat video a couple of years back [1] that does understand this. They did the same argument that you are making here. Heck, the prisoners dilemma is about how cooperating is the most viable strategy for global benefits. The world isn't really a zero sum game. We get a tons of energy thanks to our star that is usually the thing that most closed systems desperately look for.

[1]: https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ

[energy123]

This is basically an argument that China should become more like North Korea rather than the other way around.

Reality is that remittances and the skills that emigrants eventually bring back to their home country far exceeds any negative effects. Policymakers know this which is why they don't deter this from happening. In many countries they actively encourage it, such as is Philippines.

When economists talk about "no free lunch" they are specifically talking about abnormal profits. They are not talking about the fact that voluntary decisions of private actors can lead to positive sum outcomes in utility.

[tomhoward]

> This is basically an argument that China should become more like North Korea rather than the other way around.

How exactly?

I’m no pro-China advocate (I’m Australian and live with the mixed outcomes of our ties with China, and I have no strong feelings about what Australia or the US should do with respect to China or anyone else).

But (leaving aside arguments about their “true” motives and assuming good faith), China invests in the economic development of many weaker countries and doesn’t try to brain-drain them. The U.S. and western allies invested heavily in the redevelopment of Germany and Japan after WWII, and all countries involved ended up much stronger.

It’s that spirit that I’m talking about.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>That when you drain the most smart/productive people away from every other country, all those countries become less wealthy and more dysfunctional, leading to societal decline, poverty, resentment, radicalisation, war, etc?

Societal decline, poverty, resentment etc.: why should functional people bear the burden of it? Brain drain happens for reasons beyond the simple need to earn more money, it also happens because dealing with those dysfunctional people is extremely draining at several levels. On a larger scale when putting smart people together - be it at a country level or even at a company level, one achieves things that are not normally not possible, which is a net benefit for the world at large even if it creates some populations that are dysfunctional.

[keybored]

> But does anyone think through to the end-game of that? That when you drain the most smart/productive people away from every other country, all those countries become less wealthy and more dysfunctional, leading to societal decline, poverty, resentment, radicalisation, war, etc?

My average IQ (or below) take is that this “brain drain” narrative where absolutely everything collapses—societal decline, war, resentment, aah basically the Apocalypse—because the smart people leave is just the belief here because people put 50% or more of their professional identity into believing they have a high IQ.

[mdnahas]

Economist here. You’re not considering agglomeration effects. Smart people near other smart people are more effective. So world GDP growth may be faster.

(Economists have pointed out that US growth is slower because SF is so expensive, young smart people cannot agglomerate there and learn tech faster.)

[ccppurcell]

Brain drain happens when the quality of life in a particular country dips below some standard. It's relative to other countries only up to a point. I strongly doubt it is possible to increase quality of life (albeit for a minority) in one country so high to outweigh the utility of staying put in other countries. You certainly can't do it in a democracy: who would vote to increase the quality of life specifically for a small group of immigrants? I'm pro immigration btw but people are not going to vote against their own interests to such an extent.

[agumonkey]

But smart people stuck in bad countries would not be able to work and thrive or maybe their ideas would get locked somewhere ?

[underdeserver]

Problem is in these countries there just aren't enough opportunities. There are very, very few places in the world you can get a Stanford PhD - including the atmosphere, colleagues, labs, money.

Before you can even invest the immense time and effort needed to build that kind of environment, you need the will of the people, and in most of the world you don't have that.

[LeroyRaz]

Your claim that good economicts "know there is no free lunch" is completely false, unsubstantiated and actively misleading.

Many impressive economists believe there are policies that could massively improve the worlds economy, but that implementating these policies is a coordination problem / hard to overcome lobbying / politically intractable, etc...

Radical Markets is great book on exactly this topic.

[nuancebydefault]

> coordination problem / hard to overcome lobbying / politically intractable, etc...

So much for free lunch?

[tomhoward]

I’m just saying every perceived benefit has some kind of cost or perverse consequence, eventually. Please feel free to point to a specific example of a policy that has been successfully implemented that contradicts this principle.

[maxerickson]

That when you drain every smart/productive person away from every other country

This is a ridiculous premise.

[tomhoward]

I edited that sentence to be less absolutist, but still, isn't this essentially what this article and many people are advocating? Attracting all the smartest and most productive people in the world to move to the US? How is that a mischaracterisation of the argument?