[nitkel]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Yes they do. I don't think that is in question anywhere in the points I've raised.-------
Except that the donor country-economy is never compensated. We can agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks for the data!

Since your original post is all about financial compensation for the "donor" country, is this about discouraging emigration to retain talent or to just create a new revenue stream?

Seems to be the latter to me. Hence, my point of the investments in India from NRIs and OCIs, which are significant, and should be more of a reason to encourage emigration than to discourage it from a financial standpoint.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by nitkel

Thanks for the data!

Since your original post is all about financial compensation for the "donor" country, is this about discouraging emigration to retain talent or to just create a new revenue stream?

Seems to be the latter to me. Hence, my point of the investments in India from NRIs and OCIs, which are significant, and should be more of a reason to encourage emigration than to discourage it from a financial standpoint.

Yes I'm focused on economic compensation from the recipient country's Govt. It might sound outlandish but could be a reality one day. In 1900s when Lokmanya Tilak said 'Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it' that too sounded utterly outlandish to the British rulers. The world very gradually is creeping from deep exploitation (colonial times) to equity. Not there yet by a 100 miles but the trend is very real. This could happen too. And why not. No I'm not against or for emigration - it is a very personal choice like religion or selecting a spouse. And at least in India you cannot stop it. We've wandered a lot off topic!!!!The Moderators might whack us.

[v1p3r]

I've actually emigrated twice (an achievement in itself) so at least on this thread, I am uniquely qualified to offer an opinion.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Moot question how is this different from intellectual property for which we pay a fee. We use IP created by someone else and pay a fee for it because it is useful to us. Same way!

It is a different issue as to why good people emigrate. That's not what I'm talking about. This is a modern form of resource drain. In colonial times they simply grabbed the gold and took it. Now they take assets that are way way way more valuable. It is a whole different issue that the conditions in third world countries encourage some to emigrate. But a lot of those conditions directly and indirectly are the long term consequences of colonial economic and social exploitation that will take another one to four generations to remedy.

"We" don't create the IP. In fact, we place obstacles in the creation of said IP. That is why the Nadellas and Pichais of the world are not building in India. You cannot treat people as 'goods' that are being plundered. People vote with their feet. Years of mismanagement in UP and Bihar means that engineers from there come to Bangalore and Gurgaon for IT jobs, not the other way round. The same, but at a larger scale, applies to international emigration. If we want to attract and retain talent, we need to make our shores enticing. And it is very much possible - check China's net migration, which was 50% less than India's in the same year. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=2017&view=bar

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If attracting talent from the third world is of such little use why do Australia, Canada, UK, USA have immigrant friendly policies..

Actually, the UK is very unfriendly to immigrants from non-European countries. Having lived there, I can tell you this. For their stupidity and arrogance, they are now paying the price, and through their nose. But friendly to us, they are not.

Has anyone ever wondered why there are no Chinese construction (and other blue collar) workers in the Middle East?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

"We" don't create the IP. In fact, we place obstacles in the creation of said IP. That is why the Nadellas and Pichais of the world are not building in India. You cannot treat people as 'goods' that are being plundered. People vote with their feet. Years of mismanagement in UP and Bihar means that engineers from there come to Bangalore and Gurgaon for IT jobs, not the other way round. The same, but at a larger scale, applies to international emigration. If we want to attract and retain talent, we need to make our shores enticing. And it is very much possible - check China's net migration, which was 50% less than India's in the same year. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=2017&view=bar

Clearly I have failed to communicate a new concept to this thread. Both member Nitkel and you who took the trouble of responding {and my thanks for that, to both} have misunderstood. Not surprising because the subject of Emigration is loaded thus with emotion and strongly held positions that we can't think of the subject without auto reverting to our chosen views and miss the fact that I am not talking of India sucks, why people emigrate, it is a birthright, the air in the West is so clean or any of those hackneyed themes.

I'm also not talking of creating IP in India. I'm talking of a concept that the 20 to 30 year effort a society makes in creating a talented, intelligent, educated, well trained individual imbibed with the right values, work ethics, attitudes etc is akin to IP creation. I tried to pick the closest example I could think of. And the first world who consciously and by deliberate Govt policy attract, lure, retain these talents should compensate the third world societies and economies that create them. That is the concept I'm tabling. This is not a discussion on India sucks, why can't India be better, USA is the land of opportunities, the fundamental right to emigrate or any of those oft repeated themes that have been beaten to death. Nor I am I talking of Emigration being good or bad - either way it is a fact.

All,

When we buy oil {a tangible product} from Saudi Arabia we pay for it. When we buy IP rights of a pharma molecule {an intangible product} from USA we pay for it. Similarly when USA or Canada buy/lure/attract human talent from India or Brazil and other third world nations they must pay for it. To close this discussion for example if Australia takes a doctor from India with post graduation, super specialization and 10 years of surgery experience then the Australian tax payer should compensate India - say a one time fee of US$ 10 million. A real example at my hospitals --- we go to great lengths to groom doctors in cardiac and paediatric specializations. It takes a lot of time in years, surgical on the job training and mentoring {by seniors} for a junior doctor to get his or her hand set. But once a doctor crosses some magic number of 500 surgeries he/she is hot potato for Australia and USA. I agree it is the doctors fundamental right to emigrate and earn more and live in a superior material environment. But let's not forget the effort, time and money spent by his parents, the nation and hospitals like mine in getting him to that point.

We encourage our doctors to write on medical topics or research matters in well known medical journals. Each paper contains a short resume of the doctor. I know from repeated direct experience that Australia and Canada scour through these on line and print journals to track young experienced doctors and write directly to them offering emigration as an option. I am not against that. The point I'm making is that this is a well thought through effort to cream our top talent at our expense and to their benefit. So long as India is a democracy we can't stop them. But I do believe they must pay for it to the donor nation.

We can drop the subject as it is off topic to the core of the thread and clearly too early to grasp and debate over. And clearly this view point will ruffle a lot of feathers.

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I'm also not talking of creating IP in India. I'm talking of a concept that the 20 to 30 year effort a society makes in creating a talented, intelligent, educated, well trained individual imbibed with the right values, work ethics, attitudes etc is akin to IP creation. I tried to pick the closest example I could think of. And the first world who consciously and by deliberate Govt policy attract, lure, retain these talents should compensate the third world societies and economies that create them. That is the concept I'm tabling.

If I were to associate this scenario differently, this is akin to my employer in India having to pay my university throughout the course of my career with them, for training and helping me gain the skills I now possess to embark on a career. Nopes. I don't think I see the merit in this line of thought.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

This is not a discussion on India sucks, why can't India be better, USA is the land of opportunities, the fundamental right to emigrate or any of those oft repeated themes that have been beaten to death. Nor I am I talking of Emigration being good or bad - either way it is a fact.

v1p3r merely mentioned how you don't find Chinese doing blue collar jobs in the Middle East, which just like emigration is also a fact. That said, they are still amongst the highest in terms of emigration as well, again a fact.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I'm also not talking of creating IP in India. I'm talking of a concept that the 20 to 30 year effort a society makes in creating a talented, intelligent, educated, well trained individual imbibed with the right values, work ethics, attitudes etc is akin to IP creation. I tried to pick the closest example I could think of. And the first world who consciously and by delibrate Govt policy attract, lure, retain these talents should compensate the third world societies and economies that create them. That is the concept I'm tabling. This is not a discussion on India sucks, why can't India be better, USA is the land of opportunities, the fundamental right to emigrate or any of those oft repeated themes that have been beaten to death. Nor I am I talking of Emigration being good or bad - either way it is a fact.

Sorry but that is a very flawed methodology to consider. Let's look at the core principle and apply it at more simpler scenario but with the same variables at play. I'll dole down the timeframe and other aspects to more relatable scenarios.

1. UP, Bihar & eastern states supply labor to metros/tier1/tier2 cities - pick any growing city in the (richer) western & south states; the offline service jobs are taken up by folks from other states while % of locals are ever reducing. Would a Karnataka or Maharashtra be ready to 'pay' Orissa or Bihar to compensate for the additional worker force?

2. Students migrate to the best colleges (IITs/NITs/Medical/Law/etc.) moving across different states, and then potentially different states where they get the jobs (e.g. I studied in GJ, KL & JH and I have worked mostly in MH & KA). Do the states (or cities) where the students eventually work be ready to pay the states where they were educated?

3. There's a parallel thread on salaries in IT Services with the WITCH firms and other Tech firms inadvertently taking up the mandate to train freshers and additionally 'skill' them on top of what they learnt in their colleges. The difference is clearly seen in difference in salaries commanded by freshers and those with say atleast 2-3 years of experience. Would the second or third firm hiring these IT workers be ready to pay the first firm to compensate for the training/experience the staff obtained there?


-------------------

My view is India needs to stop depending on the 'developing' card and take the bulls by the horns. We have firms offering pay packages and a life that sometimes replicates the same offered in developed worlds. The same can be said of educational institutes across industries/professions. We should be looking at harnessing the best of minds from other countries (e.g. our neighboring countries to start with). That is the way to look to, not an outdated mindset where countries get to 'own' the human resources like it's a natural or produced good of that country. When I am hiring, I look at the candidate's credentials; not if he's from which state or even country. If I could do that sitting in Chicago, why can't I do that in Bangalore.

The migration of people with talent to better opportunities and by that if it leads moving to a different state or different country is natural and can not be stopped. Compensation and the choice of a 'better' life is always going to be the driving card, not where people come from and where they head to.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

1. UP, Bihar & eastern states supply labor to metros/tier1/tier2 cities - pick any growing city in the (richer) western & south states; the offline service jobs are taken up by folks from other states while % of locals are ever reducing. Would a Karnataka or Maharashtra be ready to 'pay' Orissa or Bihar to compensate for the additional worker force?

2. Students migrate to the best colleges (IITs/NITs/Medical/Law/etc.) moving across different states, and then potentially different states where they get the jobs (e.g. I studied in GJ, KL & JH and I have worked mostly in MH & KA). Do the states (or cities) where the students eventually work be ready to pay the states where they were educated?

3. There's a parallel thread on salaries in IT Services with the WITCH firms and other Tech firms inadvertently taking up the mandate to train freshers and additionally 'skill' them on top of what they learnt in their colleges. The difference is clearly seen in difference in salaries commanded by freshers and those with say atleast 2-3 years of experience. Would the second or third firm hiring these IT workers be ready to pay the first firm to compensate for the training/experience the staff obtained there?

With due respect this analogy does not apply here. We are talking of creaming of talent by rich nations at the expense of the poorer ones. But we can agree to disagree.


-------------------

My view is India needs to stop depending on the 'developing' card and take the bulls by the horns. We have firms offering pay packages and a life that sometimes replicates the same offered in developed worlds. The same can be said of educational institutes across industries/professions. We should be looking at harnessing the best of minds from other countries (e.g. our neighboring countries to start with). That is the way to look to, not an outdated mindset where countries get to 'own' the human resources like it's a natural or produced good of that country. When I am hiring, I look at the candidate's credentials; not if he's from which state or even country. If I could do that sitting in Chicago, why can't I do that in Bangalore.

I agree. theoretically that is the long term way to go. Should take 50 years to get there maybe 25 at a pinch. No reason for us to sit quiet till then.

The migration of people with talent to better opportunities and by that if it leads moving to a different state or different country is natural and can not be stopped. Compensation and the choice of a 'better' life is always going to be the driving card, not where people come from and where they head to.

We are on the same page. My posts repeatedly state this.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

With due respect this analogy does not apply here. We are talking of creaming of talent by rich nations at the expense of the poorer ones. But we can agree to disagree.

Can't disagree with that, sir!

I agree. theoretically that is the long term way to go. Should take 50 years to get there maybe 25 at a pinch.

I think we'll reach there in much less than a decade (but always remain in a flux dual state like the views on this thread). Hopefully, at least the mindset will change much faster, that life overseas is 'always' >>> life here, and is more dependent on a case to case basis.


For example people cribbing about traffic woes (in any Indian city) should experience the long jams of I-95 (towards DC) or the congestion around the Holland/Lincoln tunnels of NY. They'll feel just at home

-------------
Okay, enough of my OT discussions. Last post from me on this.

[m8002?]

For the top professionals in India( IT, Medicine or business leaders ) the key factor for migration is no more about money. Its purely about Quality of Life and future prospects for their kids. Given the lower costs, the savings potential is very good in India.

Consider a few points :
a. Buying an marquee car is not an issue but having space to park it and enjoy the drive is the problem.
b. Getting a 1Cr salary package is not that difficult. Question is would you like to get that in a society bubbling with civil unrest ( religious, caste, regional ) or 50% lesser pay for a much more peaceful society.
c. Lets not forget about the other things like pollution, corruption, etc.

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

For example people cribbing about traffic woes (in any Indian city) should experience the long jams of I-95 (towards DC) or the congestion around the Holland/Lincoln tunnels of NY. They'll feel just at home

You've just made traffic related complaints sound so trivial. The issue is not with the time in traffic alone, is it? It's to do with the ruthlessness of it. Motorists fighting their way through without giving way, thereby ensuring no one goes anywhere and so on.

Am sure folks would say hire a driver, sit back and enjoy. Not all of us can do that, as it comes with it's own set of challenges.

P.S. : I've never been to the US, so haven't experienced the chaos mentioned.

[sunilch]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

All,

When we buy oil {a tangible product} from Saudi Arabia we pay for it. When we buy IP rights of a pharma molecule {an intangible product} from USA we pay for it. Similarly when USA or Canada buy/lure/attract human talent from India or Brazil and other third world nations they must pay for it. To close this discussion for example if Australia takes a doctor from India with post graduation, super specialization and 10 years of surgery experience then the Australian tax payer should compensate India - say a one time fee of US$ 10 million. A real example at my hospitals --- we go to great lengths to groom doctors in cardiac and paediatric specializations. It takes a lot of time in years, surgical on the job training and mentoring {by seniors} for a junior doctor to get his or her hand set. But once a doctor crosses some magic number of 500 surgeries he/she is hot potato for Australia and USA. I agree it is the doctors fundamental right to emigrate and earn more and live in a superior material environment. But let's not forget the effort, time and money spent by his parents, the nation and hospitals like mine in getting him to that point.

Respected member V.Narayan, allow me to add another analogy to this, if I may. Imagine green and hill states of India who provide water and green cover for the country as a whole. Extend this idea to global level as well - Imaging Amazonian countries who provide a lot of green cover to earth.

Now can we compensate them in someway (directly or indirectly) for providing these intangible benefits to the larger populace? I believe the answer for most members will be YES. We already have Carbon Credits for something similar at international level. There are discussions to create something of this sort at state level in India. This will not only ensure that states continue to do what they are doing, but it act as an additional incentive for them to improve their efforts further.

The same analogy can be applied to supply of skilled or even semi-skilled labour force.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Would a Karnataka or Maharashtra be ready to 'pay' Orissa or Bihar to compensate for the additional worker force?

That has been happening for a long time, in an indirect way. Guess which states generate maximum tax revenue for the union government? And then guess which states get most of those tax money?

People always look at things from vantage points where they think they are being victimized. I recall conversations from mid-90s when I lived in USA. Some of my colleagues were open with me knowing I planned to return to India. These were times when many of my colleagues were Vietnam war veterans or younger siblings or sons of soldiers who died in Vietnam. They said there was massive resentment within their veteran communities that foreigners were taking up plum jobs in the tech industry, without making any sacrifices for their country. Instead of training the veterans or families of veterans to take up tech jobs, the tech industry was importing ready-made tech workers from outside and giving them high paying jobs. What really pissed them off was the fact that engineers from India had zero student debt, where as most of them had student debt.

Now, I could have argued with them that US was getting trained engineers without spending a dime on the training, making India the victim. But I didn't. It is hard for a regular person to think of the government as a victim. And they would be right in a way. Government's job is to spend on their citizens, without thinking of profit. However, when we think across governments, the argument from VN does have merit. Why should country X benefit from the long term investments made by country Y?

But there is no clear answer, because counter-arguments can be made:
1) Native country is not providing ample job opportunities.
2) Native country is not providing good business environment for innnovators/entrepreneurs.
3) The citizen may generate more revenue via overseas remittance by working abroad.

Ultimately, emigrating is a personal decision. We all have personal reasons for staying back, emigrating and returning back. But don't try to turn those personal reasons into universal truths. Your reasons are not universal truths, they are just personal factors that you helped you make your decision.

[Theyota]

Originally Posted by nitkel

This brain-drain issue is overblown.

100% agreed. We have disproportionately more brains than opportunities. It’s not that we are born any smarter then the rest of the world. We have proportionally lesser opportunities in India in relation to our population.

As it stands today, I think it would be a joke if we asked developed countries to pay a fee for offering citizenship to our people. As a contradiction, in another thread on this board, there are people arguing about low beginner salaries in IT due to demand and supply of manpower.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The chart below from a Pew Research report for 2017 shows India in that year got $63.2 billion through inward remittances of NRIs and OCIs.

Little OT for this thread, is it possible to get data on the outward remittances from India! I won't be surprised if the Northern region turns out to be a big contributor.

[Turbojet]

Originally Posted by download2live

A "cautious" contribution to this thread.
Most of the bhpians are a level above the rest in indian people in terms of having their act together regarding career, life and financial stability. In my books if you are talking about car ownership in 2000-2015's (not sure of it now) it means that you have arrived.

But there is a vast majority of people out there who are mediocre. Who do not want and also will never reach those 1cr paying CTO jobs in unicorn startups. Or who do not want and will never be the VP. And who never will be able to work rent free from their hometown.

But they still have to pay school fees, tackle medical emergencies and plan for a nest egg. It is difficult.

I know we can say that it is because they are not good enough. Which is true. But it is also true that for every successfull person there are 1000's of mediocre people. We cannot wish them away.

This viewpoint of someone being a "mediocre" and "supercilious" for fellow bhpians is little disappointing. I know people who own Audi Q7 but don't even know how automatic rain sensing wipers work or how they work in other cars. They don't appreciate or understand the engineering behind the marvelous vehicles they drive. For them its an object of desire. I also know people probably who are satisfied with their life in terms of earnings and relationships and prefer to be happy instead of rich