Gurdur

This would need much more back-up as an argument --- and definitely more precision as to which segment of emigrants are meant.
Immigration into the USA, Gemany, the UK or Australia is very much a mixed affair, with very different segments of emigrants with different motivations and attitudes.
In any case, Seanie's points included the fact that much emigration to the USA had nothing whatosever to do with choice.

Furthermore, it's a moot question: are those who emigrate simply the ones most driven ?

It wouild be terribly easy simply to reply with the also unsupported assertion that those who emigrate are the wimps who can't take the heat back at home.
You see what I mean ?

It's very easy to jump to conclusions --- and not worthwhile.

elwoodblues

I'm going to try to hop back in here...

I agree that it's cultural. But I also think that the constant stream of incredibly varied immigrants we continue to get has greatly helped to counteract that propensity. It's not just the fact that we are almost entirely a nation of immigrants, but also that we are, I would argue, more than any other nation on earth, a magnet for more immigrants.

I tried digging up census data to back me up last night, but was unsuccessful in finding data either way. If anyone can find immigration/emmigration and other related statistics for the US and other countries, I'd be grateful. It'll either support my claim or tell me something I don't know; win-win situation there.

Ron Garrett

The primary reason poverty clings to nations like Liberia, despite gold mines, Angola, despite oil reserves, etc. has to do with the levels of bureaucracy and how they stifle entrepreneurship.

Global business development is my bag, and I can tell you there is a world of difference between getting a business license here North Carolina, one step and one fee, and getting one in Zimbabwe, as much as 18 steps with fees and payoffs at each level.

Unlike the nations that remained possessions of the colonial powers into this century, the US never developed the stifling colonial bureaucracies that France, Great Britain and the other colonial powers had imposed in the third world by the 20th century, all of which had roots in the Roman system wherein provinces were essentially tax franchises whose "rulers" and bureaucrats made only what they could skim and extort before paying for their territorial leases. The current economy of India is an example of how economic activity booms when levels of bureaucracy are collapsed as has happened in the last few years of intense deregulation.

I am of course not rulling out the importance of education and cultural tradition, but on the other hand it's hard to argue that those in South Africa that think aids is caused by witchcraft are any more ignorant and superstitious than the evangelicals who hang on every dire "prophecy" pronounced on Trinity Broadcasting.

Gurdur

eh, maybe like Hong Kong ?
The Hong Kong have a proverb about this all, about the first generation being thrifty and hardworking but dirt-poor, the next being comfortably off, the next being rich but lazy spendthrifts, the next being thrifty and hardworking but dirt-poor.
They get a constant stream of immigration or attempted immigration (much illegal) from mainland China.
Depends whether you're speaking quantitatively or qualitatively.

BTW, Israel probably is far more a country of immigration than the USA;
Australia is roughly on a per capita par with the USA;
the UK is definitely not far behind on a per capita basis;
etc.
etc.

It would be interesting if you can come up with any conclusions that don't rely on the fact that the USA is simply the largest single economy at the moment; what is also interesting is a prognosis I once read that in 300 years everyone in the USA will be speaking Spanish.

Gurdur

Nope, that's just one reason among several. Both examples you gave, BTW, are also plagued by long-standing civil wars, as well as tropical diseases in large quantities, as well as by foreign debt.
________

Long time no see, Ron Garrett; where have you been ? Howdy and welcome back

echidna

Even in English, �shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations�.

It�s a very well-known phenomenon in family businesses that the first generation will build the foundations through relentless hard work, the second understands that & the business thrives from its solid foundation, while the third understands nothing of the requirement for hard work & squanders the lot.

Even at a national level, I see Japan as suffering in part from this behaviour, that it�s incredible post-war growth was largely though the hard work of that generation, but that the more recent generations are only accustomed to the good life, largely resulting in a marked economic decline. That said, there are other factors as well.

Ron Garrett

It's been busy, busy Gurdur. Good to pop back in.

I certainly don't contend that bureuacracy is the sole problem, but the correlation between high levels of bureaucracy and low levels of per capita income is damn near linear, so at the least the influence looms large or is coincidental to an uncanny degree.

If you're interested in the research on the economics of poverty, one of the best places to read up is this World Bank site: Poverty.net I stopped at a master's, so I'm hardly the Alan Greenspan of econ, but I can at least follow the discussions, and some of the work being done particularly by Japanese and Indian social economists these days is fascinating, unless you're a Republican. The site provides open access to poverty reduction plans on a global basis.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Gurdur
---- though by the way, I'll also add the point that what looks like indolence is often the effect of disease and parasite infestation ---- a very good example being the lower Nile valley, where repeated bilharzia infection leads to clinical depression and overall bad health, or in central Africa, where sleeping-sickness (carried by the tsetse fly) can cause half a village to simply doze to death.

Add that active malaria reduces IQ considerably. Personally I found that active malaria rendered me unable to read. (Although it's possible that it was from interfering with the focusing muscles. Back then I had no need of glasses but by now I've learned that I'm actually quite farsighted.)

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Gurdur
This would need much more back-up as an argument --- and definitely more precision as to which segment of emigrants are meant.
Immigration into the USA, Gemany, the UK or Australia is very much a mixed affair, with very different segments of emigrants with different motivations and attitudes.

Those who will basically leave everything behind to move to a new society tend to be those who are willing to work hard to better themselves. Their original cultural position doesn't matter.

In any case, Seanie's points included the fact that much emigration to the USA had nothing whatosever to do with choice.

When it's not by choice then the effect is neutral.

Furthermore, it's a moot question: are those who emigrate simply the ones most driven ?

Only if society is somehow singling them out to chase away. In that case it becomes involuntary and is neutral.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Ron Garrett
The primary reason poverty clings to nations like Liberia, despite gold mines, Angola, despite oil reserves, etc. has to do with the levels of bureaucracy and how they stifle entrepreneurship.

Exactly. It's the governments there that are the real big problem.

one step and one fee, and getting one in Zimbabwe, as much as 18 steps with fees and payoffs at each level.

And if you don't kowtow to Mugabe you probably don't get one at all.