Talk:Human capital flight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Brain drain)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Globalization (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

encyclopedia article or original research[edit]

This is an interesting article, but perhaps too much of original research. I was going to add a few names to the list of Jews fleeing from the nazis on the continent (e.g. Kurt Lewin and the Frankfurt School) when I realised that it is not the job of an article to come up with these names, right? That would be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdeborinite (talkcontribs) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring and adding headings[edit]

I just reorgihnized the paragraph order and added osme headings. I probbly read the whoel three times while doing it but did not have time to read it start to finish after the last change so someone shoudl double check that I did not intoduce any forward or backward refrence problems by moving paragraphs around wholsale. I will give it another look tomorrow I hope. Dalf | Talk 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources - good use of figures, but need to be backed up!!! Needs some links to back these claims up!

Indian brain drain-what about it?

Canadian brain-drain[edit]

I think the section about rhetoric backfiring in Canada (recently removed) should be reworded more neutrally and placed into a separate section about brain drain and social policy. Planning to do that sometime this week. Novickas 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) w where is indian brain drain llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll wahat the heck!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.27.133 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am taking this out: "The notion of Double Brain Drain as described by Toronto activist/politician Karen Sun, is "the combined double negative impact of brain drain; first upon the the country losing their best and brightest to Canada, and second upon the individuals drawn to Canada based upon an immigration process promising the expectation of employment yet ultimately leading to lower rung positions. Both countries of emigration and the immigrants lose and no one gains in many cases.""

I appreciate the effort someone has taken to include all the facts, but this 'afterthought' is both poorly written and redundant. It doesn't really add anything -- not already mentioned -- to the article. Canada's receiving of more highly skilled immigrants than it loses is already featured prominently in the sections relating to Canada. Canada's tough policies in relation to credentialism and licensure (and the problems such policies sometimes cause for newly admitted professionals from other nations) are similarly mentioned prior to this passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

here is Indian brain drain In India there is no value of work. if u speak good if u have good communication skills then u lead in company also in software development company. In India if one person do his work honestly the all work load is put into his shoulder and also give him less increment and give him excuse that u had not completed your task on time ie why your increment is less. and give more increment to a person who had not touch his task and told to PM that no need to worry i will give u with in a day..........

South Africa[edit]

Brain drain is one of the biggest issues in SA since the end of Apartheid. Much of the current policy of the government is based on the concept of educating black SAfricans so that they may fill the positions vacated by white emigrants without a drop in standards. There needs to be a section on this, as it is a huge issue in an important country.

I will second the idea of adding a Brain drain section on South-Africa. The total number of emmigrants may be small on a global scale (about 1 Million emmigrants since 1994), but the fact this this represents about 20% of the white population and that these are usually the skilled top 20% does make this a significant issue.

I came to this page looking for information on the South African brain drain. As stated above, it has a remarkable scale within the population, and I recall (but cannot cite) hourglass-shaped population breakdowns due to the mass departure of white South African graduates. My concern might rather be one of the scale that warrants a separate section. If New Zealand has a separate section, should not South Africa too? Warrickball (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Voice[edit]

This article is written largely in an odd voice. It seems like text copied from a non-encyclopedic source. The article relies heavily on a report, largely rearticulating it rather than treating the subject matter directly. Hopefully someone more familiar with the evolution of this article can work on it. Maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia tagging can put some appropriate tag to draw attention to the need to revisit this article.

bvcngvnhmvhjv hfdhg  cygfmhc yt

I'm going to watch this page to see what happens, to learn about this process. Christian Campbell 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree - this reads like a peer review of the World Bank report on brain drain, rather than an article actually about brain drain in its own right. I suspect it has been copied word-for-word from somewhere else. Needs total re-write. Andrew Oakley 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed - vast swathes of this article have been copied from this World Bank press release which is copyrighted. Will tag with WP:CP . Andrew Oakley 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Brain Grab[edit]

Removed from article:

Brain Grab
The term "brain grab" coined by Astrid Wood in 2007 refers to aggressive policies that entice young, educated talent to urban areas. The "Creative Class" is a term referring to the development of young, artistic individuals with means. The influx of the Creative Class increases spending and leads to general improvements. The fight over the "Creative Class" is an example of a brain grab.

Reason:

Searching for references on Google [1], yields zero results. The "Brain Grab" section was also not integrated with the rest of the article, but tacked on. If anybody finds a reference, and puts it back into the article, please integrate it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.182.105 (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Badenoch[edit]

Many of the statements being made are highly subjective and controversial:

  • Unskilled workers tend to be a net drain on the economy. They don't pay much tax, have high unemployment, have high social costs}, are difficult to educate and are predisposed to crime.
-Softened the paragraph to reflect the fiscal burden, without being specific about why they are a burden.
  • The overall picture is bleak. Europe's birth rate is much too low.
-The Commissions has clearly chosen to present bleak statistics, so that they can get political support for policy changes. Their rather blunt description of migration patterns is very relevant to the topic of brain drain. This statement has been strengthened by quoting the Commission.
  • To make matters even worse the unskilled immigrants that do come are a drain on the economy and are upsetting the public. If things don't improve, it will become difficult to convince voters that immigration is in their interests.
Softened to describe the problem of fiscal burden and left out comments about public anxiety.

Simply put, one cannot write such things on Wikipedia without extensive citations and in a neutral tone of voice. Since Badenoch has clearly put much effort into adding to this article, I invite him to contribute to this discussion to see how the information can be added without being (in my eyes) inflammatory making normative statements. Kelvinc (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


The deffinition of neutral view depends ones persective. It is my opinion that the European Commission represents is resonably central political view, and those with anti-immigration views are extreme, sometimes known as far-right political parties [2]. Please understand that although these parties enjoy substantial political support, they are still a minority in most European countries.

All of the major arguments are referenced, mostly from the European Commission either directly or indirectly. You will notice that the European Commission front page on immigration polices touches on many of the core concepts presented. Other references are from statistical agencies, scientific jornals etc.Badenoch (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Okay. At least it's clear you're not using Wikipedia to push some sort of agenda, which is the general impression when you wrote that immigrants are predisposed to crime right beside an SVP election ad. But I suggest reading WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
The main issue I have with your contributions is not that I find the European Commission to be insufficiently "central", but that it only represents one point of view. Wikipedia seeks to present all perspectives, in a way that is relatively balanced and true to real-world levels of support in different opinions. Terms like "talented people" are subjective (better to state education levels). It's not exactly clear what is "bleak": your summary of what's happening in Europe may well be delightful to a Europhobe. If Europe will be poor and aging with crumbling infrastructure, just say so without adding emotional adjectives.
And the whole thing still reads a lot like a research paper, which we should be avoiding, instead of an encyclopedia article, which makes it read like original research. I'm not exactly sure how to fix this second issue, but I'm happy to see that we're collaborating to improve the article. Kelvinc (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kelvinc personally I don't know any Europhobes, so I have no idea what delights them. However from your wikipage I notice that you are interested in Anglospherism (especially the White Commonwealth) and Sinospherism. These interests seem to have distinct racial/cultural undertones. A friend of mine informs me that there are websites that cater for these interests where people can freely debate racial/cultural issues. Perhaps these might be better at meeting your needs than wikipedia. Badenoch (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Original research issues?[edit]

  • Have the neutrality (and possible original research) issues raised for the "European overview" section been sufficiently addressed? Where were the issues raised, and how were they addressed? Please provide diffs or other pointers to whatever discussion has already taken place. tia Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's Figure 1[edit]

Erm... where's figure 1? does anyone know? I read the whole section 3 times but I still couldn't find it. If anyone knows, could you tell me? Please? Shadowex132 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete Overhaul[edit]

I think it's recognized that this page needs some serious work. The page is disorganized, and clearly has problems with citations and neutrality. While sections like New Zealand have no citations at all, some parts have a few, and some may yet stand up to scrutiny.

I suggest a major overhaul, with three objectives:

  • organize the page into a coherent and logical structure,
  • establish which sections are properly cited, and copy-edit them, and
  • try to find sources for unsourced statements, deleting those that cannot be verified, and editing as necessary.

Even though I haven't undertaken such a large edit before, I figure I can't damage the page much. Hopefully I'll learn and contribute at the same time. I've already re-organized, and now I'm ploughing through each section to check the sources and fix the prose. I'm going to be a ruthless at times: there's a one-liner about Malaysia, which I'm taking out. If it turns out to be substantial, we can put it back later. (I also don't really know where to start on the Studies section, and I'll worry about the Europe section later. Many facts, but wrong style.) Any help is greatly appreciated!

Warrickball (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating as I go...

  • Malaysia: One line, unsourced. Gone for now.
  • Philippines: Wow. It's real, and received a lot of news coverage around 2006. There were hints of restrictive laws being passed to keep "critical skills" in the country, notably pilots. I couldn't find any hard sources though.
  • Venezuela: I can't verify the BradyNet article. There is the Telegraph article, but it's all I could find, and lacks hard numbers. Most of the text seemed to come straight out of the articles.
  • Cuba: It's verifiable, but it appears that we are talking about a few hundred doctors defecting. Not really a brain drain, but I'll leave it for now.
  • Suriname: There are sources, but it's not really restricted to Suriname: they're just the leader. Since the nature is the same in the region, I'm changing this to Caribbean.
  • Canada: Good enough for me not to scrutinize intently now.
  • New Zealand: Definitely an issue, but there are claims of a net influx of skills. Needs some more up-to-date sources.
  • Middle East: Iran is actually well-sourced. I added sources and stats for Iraq.
  • Europe: I basically rewrote the section, inlining statistics, citing almost everything, while trying to preserve the valid content that existed before. I personally disapprove of the diagram showing the migration trends, but I'll leave it until later (particularly, to see if some discussion erupts).
  • South Africa: Created the section, using news reports from international and local sources. This goes for all sections, but much of this can be greatly extended using offline sources. In the case of South Africa, the SAIRR Surveys (tome of stats, basically) should have a lot of figures, along with their Fast Facts pamphlets that are published quarterly.

Warrickball (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Latin America: the following sentence in the first paragraph is awful. "There is a surge of intellectuals leaving Latin America who are usually doctors, architects, and engineers. They often choose the US as their destination. However, after migrating, most of them work in jobs that have nothing to do with their original majors. Therefore, it is not only brain drain for their own countries, but also brain waste for the whole world.[143]" brain waste for the whole world??Lugevas (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Studies[edit]

I've noticed that this section is a word-for-word copy of this page. As such, I'm going to remove it completely. The facts represented in the opening paragraphs are mostly covered elsewhere (notably under Caribbean Islands). The other trends can be restored once we've found a new place for them. I'm already rethinking another re-organization of the page... Warrickball (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Immigration from the former Soviet Union[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any information about brain drain in the CIS region. Many of these countries are currently experiencing demographic crises which are made more severe by the extensive emigration. Also, the diffusion of the past Soviet scientific potential into the EU and the US could well be the greatest instance of brain drain (as well as brain gain) of recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.122.124 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some verifiable sources that say so, be bold and add them! Warrickball (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Added, including the rest of the Eastern Bloc. The erection of the Berlin Wall was also obviously the quintessential example used for decades to illustrate drastic action used to restrict brain drain. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

brain drain image[edit]

I think the flow chart doesn't reflect the article. Is there really a brain drain from USA&Canada to Australia&NZ? Why aren't European countries "advanced immigration" countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorxd (talkcontribs) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can say, is here in Australia there is a big debate about the lack of skilled workers, and a brian drain especially in science to other countries. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this image doesn't make much sense. Implications in it seems to be that:
  • Unskilled workers all go to Europe.
  • No skilled workers go to Europe.
  • However, skilled workers from Eastern Europe head to Western Europe
  • But no unskilled workers from Eastern Europe are heading to Western Europe
  • All workers leaving Europe are skilled and heading to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
  • A small brain drain from Canada to the US exists, comparable to the one from New Zealand to Australia. HOWEVER there is a smaller still brain drain from Canada and the US to New Zealand and Australia, but NOT THE REVERSE.
  • ALL African and Asian (and all but two American) countries are "developing"? The implication here is that Japan is sending huge hordes of unskilled workers to Europe (presumably to Bulgaria where they will get a superior Bulgarian education and head west to France to be skilled workers)
I propose we delete this image as it is misleading, arguably incorrect, and certainly a vast oversimplification.

סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one opposed, I deleted the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorxd (talkcontribs) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported U.S. brain drain claim[edit]

I'm going to remove the sentence with "...a governmental stance against funding of stem cell research has fed a migration of researchers..." since its reference doesn't say that a brain drain has actually occurred in the U.S. The referenced Guardian article only includes an allegation by one British minister that the U.S. risks a brain drain. TresÁrboles (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the factoid back in, along with references, if it is actually supported by those references. However, I don't think we should add speculation about things that might happen. TresÁrboles (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I took out the reference to 90% of all scientists and engineers living in Asia by 2010. Its already halfway through 2009, and it hasn't happened yet. The prediction was made in 2005, and hasn't panned out.David s graff (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

swiss election poster[edit]

it has nothing to do with brain drain, surely??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.35.24 (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is more relevant to xenophobia and racism Roger (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose to remove it as it is irrelevant. Roger (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spp-poster.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Spp-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rennaisance Italy[edit]

Is it worth adding content about human capital flight of Intelectuals from the italic peninsula to western Europe during the XV's?, was it a large/important movement? --200.106.105.25 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela[edit]

Venezuela merits a subsection like Cuba, much is being said about the loss of the middle class since the chavista takeover. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

the diagram in brain drain[edit]

I drew it by myself according to the written explaination to the process of brain drain. Not everything should have a citation. something could be originally-created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. On WP originally created material is in fact specifically prohibited. See WP:OR Roger (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Retirement Brain Drain?[edit]

Any interest or room for discussing the potential for "issues" from the retirement brain drain of technical—largely mainframe—workers as baby boomers retire? I can provide a link to a May 2012 Social Security Report stating that 50% of their 1000 COBOL programmers will be eligible to retire by 2015. Many people seem to think that IBM mainframes have been replaced by Windows, but this is simply not reality. An April 2012 story in ComputerWorld observed that BNY Mellon—a major financial services firm—has some 320 million lines of COBOL. Not going away anytime soon. Plus COBOL is just one of hundreds of languages in active use. Newcomers into technology want to work with newer languages & tend to shun the mainframe. DEddy (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2055571.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

China brain drain chart?[edit]

Has anyone checked the first chart under "Statistics of brain drain in China?" The return rates are way off starting in 2000...I don't know what was going on in the source publisher's head, but maybe the chart should be taken down or at least fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.91.45 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Current situation[edit]

I just got into this article, which was listed in the Community Portal under "spelling and grammar". I did a general revision to correct the English, which was mostly good but had some defects here and there. I don't see the validity of the criticism still placed at the head of the article, however, about its convoluted structure. It appears from the "talk" discussions above that it's been drastically revised over time. To me, as far as being well written goes, it now seems satisfactory, except that the section on the Phiippines is proportionally rather large and might merit being split off as a separate article. I didn't go into checking up on the sources, which I gather have been criticized as largely restricted to a single UN report. Apart from that, I think you might consider removing the flag about convoluted structure. The article is rather long, but seems to be a satisfactory summary of its subject. Wallace McDonald (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)