> Modern infrastructure can't handle massive population migrations.
Even when migration is allowed, people don't just move to better off-areas en masse. We see this with US states and countries in the Schengen Area. Somehow even Greenfield, CA ($9,226 per capita per year) manages to exist less than two hours from Palo Alto ($56,257 per capita per year).
I think the Schengen treaty approach of slowly adding new countries is a good long-term strategy, and I think US should join it. The population of the Schengen area is already 100M higher than the population of US, and there are several cities there that have higher living standards than anywhere in the US.
I don't know if migration to Palo Alto quite qualifies as "allowed." Think of it in comparison to immigration - you can get permanent residency in the US with an investment of $1 million dollars [1] But if you want to get permanent residency in Palo Alto, aka a house, it's going to cost you more than that, and it's the only way.
The Syrian refugees are there because their cities are being sieged, not because they were seeking greener pastures. They're mostly in temporary camps, so I wouldn't say they have migrated in the sense I was thinking of. They would likely return home if the siege ended.
Would you say they are in temporary camps because Modern infrastructure can't handle massive population migrations?
Don't get me wrong I think most countries could accept far more immigrants, but the much of the world is a long way from what most HN are used to. Consider, ethnic cleansing' is not just something that happened in WWII, it far more common than people want to admit. Poverty, language, ethnicity, and culture are real issues and complex issues.
I'm not sure "accepting immigrants" is the solution.
Okay, so you accept 5% of population, it doesn't help much the rest 95% of it.
And then you struggle to assimilate them and may become a warzone yourself.
UNRWA has been administering "temporary" refugee camps for Palestinians dispossessed from Israel since 1949. There are now people living in those camps whose grandparents were born in them, and the homes their great-grandparents left are long gone.
Why, they do. Baltic states have around 20% (?) of their population non-resident: moved to other schengen states.
Of course, some people stay. But some people always stay - "Greenfield, CA" is a place that would still exist be there 15 thousand residends or ten times less.
By the way, maybe you can consider it insignificant already.
> Baltic states have around 20% (?) of their population non-resident: moved to other schengen states.
I actually didn't think of it from that angle. I guess it could be argued that poor countries shouldn't enter reciprocal open border agreements with rich countries, out of their own self-interest. I'm guessing the movement of these Baltic people mostly benefited their new host nations, though?
People from baltics are well-educated and exhibit no cultural gap, so I believe they mostly benefit their host nations. But it is not granted for every pair of countries.
Poor countries often only have bad choices. Either you leak population but get money from abroad workers, soften tension and enjoy capital movement - or you try to restrain population, get even poorer (less eager capital, same amount of export-able work for less people), face grief and political instability.
In that respect you can compare Baltics with Ukraine.
Well, in Baltic states, there is the cultural gap between Russians and ethnic Estonians, Latvians and Litthuanians in each of the states, respectively. It is not a small one. There are still lots of people who are resident in e.g. Estonia, and were born there, but have no citizenship because they do not (can not, will not) pass the citizenship language test.
The difference to Ukraine is that the Baltic nations grew strong enough already during the final decades of Soviet Union, and they still remembered their pre-war independence.
In 1959, the population of Estonia was roughly the same as in 1939. The difference was that almost a third had been replaced by Russians.
Ethnic Estonians had been first purged by USSR in 1939-1941, then killed by war going back and forth over the country in 1941-1944, and then purged again by Stalin's further repressions until 1950's, by moving people to camps all over the Gulag and killing them there. After that, there was a bit of dual existence, and "Druzhby narodov nadozhnyy oplot!" was rather a less reliable bulwark of friendship than the song was saying.
Then, in 1991, came the singing revolution. After that, many Estonians have migrated to Finland, Sweden, Germany, and other countries, but they send money back home. In exchange, Estonians get guest workers from Russia or Belarus in the same way. Still, it's not that easy for Estonians, as for instance trained doctors and nurses often leave the country after their training.
Ukraine, in contrast, was run by various Russian cronies - the Orange revolution could not build nation -and has had endemic corruption all the time.
What you say about poor nations having bad choices is right as you either leak population or you build a police state that tries to restrain population. Education and eradication of corruption will help, but it's very slow work. I think the Baltic states are showing the way there.
There is a sizeable brain drain, but it's not really that large, especially when you consider that you can get half of an American salary in an outsourcing firm while living somewhere where cost of living is a fifth of what it's in America (numbers out of my ass, but you get the idea). The poor nation also gets oversea investors who want to have things done cheaply and strong labor laws ensure you won't have the Chinese situation of people working as more or less slaves.
Of course that doesn't hold true for all occupations. Doctors being a sore point, for one - they can't make what they would abroad mostly because most of the people are still paid miserable wages and won't be able to afford healthcare which would pay really high salaries to doctors.
At least in the case of Baltics cost of living is not a fifth of what it is in the US. In fact it could even be considered similar. For some reason countries like Spain and Germany have CHEAPER cost of living for day to day things (except rent).
Quality of life is just worse in those regions. It's not very much, but still noticeable. One of the reasons why this is the case is just income being lower for equivalent work. Richer countries just tend to have the better companies with more reach.
The problem is "brain drain". Educated people with in demand skills move to places where they can get the best compensation leaving behind people who are either retired or poor.
Also, just moving to a place with a better per capita income doesn't mean you will suddenly have that higher income; the whole reason certain places have a higher income than others is because there are high skill, high paying jobs in the area. Moving to the area doesn't suddenly give you the skills needed to get that high paying job. In addition, the cost of living is going to be higher in a place with a higher per capita income, so you need that higher paying job just to be able to afford to live there.
Even when migration is allowed, people don't just move to better off-areas en masse. We see this with US states and countries in the Schengen Area. Somehow even Greenfield, CA ($9,226 per capita per year) manages to exist less than two hours from Palo Alto ($56,257 per capita per year).
I think the Schengen treaty approach of slowly adding new countries is a good long-term strategy, and I think US should join it. The population of the Schengen area is already 100M higher than the population of US, and there are several cities there that have higher living standards than anywhere in the US.