h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

2of3,

You misunderstood, the "room" idea was just a metaphor, for an area, doesn't matter whether its a hut, a beach or a mansion.

And yes it wouldn't be ALL in one direction, but 99% of it would, its just a fact. What d'you think are the immigration numbers for siberia, compared to western europe or america.

Read post 11 by wrinkled rocker.

enrico

The question I think is WHY people are migrating. Very often they are moving from places with pleasant climates to places with worse. This doesn't make sense on the "which is the nicer place to live" grounds and is a good reason for people not rushing to Siberia.

Economic necessity is not an accident. If places with huge natural resources are forced to export their labour (migrants) then there is something that needs to be looked at in terms of who is getting the wealth?

The big multinationals are happier to have one person to deal with that they can control or at least do business with. If that person is not redistributing wealth to the rest of the population do you think the oil companies would worry?

So a system is in place which takes wealth (say oil, but it could be anything) from one country and puts it into another. The "labour wealth" (people) will follow if they can. Wouldn't you?

The west is very unhappy with people controlling resources they want to have free access to. The middle east is a great example. If they turned the oil tap off how long do you think it would be before the US/UK intervened? We've done it in the past and we would do it again.

If they turned the oil tap off they'd get golden rolexes no mo, nor fancy sports cars and square miles of Dior and barrels of Shalimar.
If they turned the oil tap off, we would finally be forced to develop the hydrogen technology. Carbon dioxide no mo!
If they turned the oil tap off and then asked for all male air controllers each time they come wafting in for a shopping spree in increasingly cheaper outfits they could turn their increasingly elderly planes round and see do they get back on the last drop of Kerosene.
I'm actually waiting for them to turn the oil tap off.

I know its a metaphor. I was not speaking about an actual room.

And I meant that I may like my country (front room) cause its warm and yours is cold!
And all the wealth that your country has won't change that!

I meant some people would still choose to live in Africa, China, Antartica. Even now people do move to those places from your front room.

I mean its arrogant to think that the whole world wants to move to the US or Europe.

Some people wouldn't move from where there are even if there were no borders.

2/3

Also if there were no borders resources (not just people) would move more freely.

I do agree with the last part about helping other territories. But if it was all one territory then it could happen more easily.

E.g. You may not mind your tax £'s going to build a hospital in Cornwall so much as a hospital in Zimbabwe.

2/3

huff......

It doesn't matter who's country it is, or what the weather is like, PEOPLE MOVE TO WHERE THERE ARE MORE RECOURCES. Thats is wy most people live in the temperate zones of the world, because the temperatures are less extreme, making its easier to grow crops etc.

Dont think I'm being arrogant i'm just stating the facts.

Good point as to distribution of resources tho. But it also comes under the survival factor - in this case why should we look after anyone else when we have our own countries look after. Luckily tho, companies and goverments are starting to not think like that. Not quite enough yet.

enrico

Look at a large country like the US (or a not so large one like the UK)!
One may perceive that large cities like New York and Los Angeles etc. have more resources. Yet people still live in poverty in other less desirable places (don't want to say a place name cause I may offends someone).

Same in the UK. Cornwall is the poorest county. Poor even by European as a whole (not just EU) standards. Yet people live there, people from London to there sometimes.

There is no border between the two extremes in each case. So people and resources can move freely. Yet not everyone had rushed up from Cornwall to London (or from "Poorville" to LA/NY in the US").

Why doesn't all of Cornwall move to London?

Sure there tends to be some migration towards prosperous areas, but its not as bad as you think.

2/3

Another thought.

Norway is the 'richest' country in the world. Highest GDP per capita and top of the UN Index.

They are also one of the least ensely populated countries.

Yes they get some asylum seekers/immoigrants but nothing compared to UK/USA.

Why not?

It can't be just about resources. If not Norway would be flooded!

2/3

Yea Norway is interesting, but not the 'ritchest', check out:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Norway is actually 6th for GDP per capita.

Also:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2112.html

should give an idea of whats what as far as immigration.

enrico

OK 4th (not sure I trust CIA figures, will try to find the UN ones, I've seen different in other publications recently)! I wouldn't count Cayman Islands or Bermuda since they are not countries. Still British dependent territories.

As for the UN index I mentioned. This is normally as a good alround index as it doesn't just measure money but other things like life expectancy, human rights etc.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_10_1_1.html

But Norway still doesn't get as many immigrants as many of the countries way down the list.


2/3

or maybe Norway's 2nd

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PIBH2.html

small point really.

2/3

Hmm... weird, if you look right at the bottom of each page at studentsoftheworld, it says sourced from the CIA fact book. Odd dunno why the two would be different.

Any back to the topic, I would assume that if all borders were removed, each migration figue for each coutry would multiply greatly. From that list from the cia, you can get an idea of where people would end up.


enrico

I still think the issue is about economics. Look at Ireland. After the potato famine Ireland exported its youth. New York used to be the largest Irish City in the world. I'm not sure if that's still the case. (Remember that the whole of Eire has a population equivalent to less than half that of NY) If you ask anyone who moved to America from Ireland why they did it, it was to obtain a better life. The Irish economy had just about died, as had much of the population. Ireland is a beautiful country and many wealthy people move there or have second (or third) homes on the west coast. They have the resources and move because they can to benefit from a relatively unspoilt environment.

Poor people move to where the resources are: Rich people move to where the environment is good.

I'll give you one reason why people move back again - weather. My son left no.73 on the CIA list to go to no.24 on a two year work visa. He came back after twelve months having not seen the sun more than ten times. In no.73 you wake up 350 days per year with the sun streaming in onto your bed. Perhaps my son should have gone to no.19 instead!

But another reason is the very reason one considers it in the first place - money. In my country I have a job (a very good one by local standards) and make about what the average is in no.8. so I should be well off, shouldn't I? But if I were to realise every asset I own into cash including my pension fund, I would spend half of it relocating my family to no.2 and the rest of it in twelve months trying to get going again. If I didn't get the good job there that I have here, I'd be stone broke.

The one's who do best when emigrating are those who have nothing much to begin with other than the airfare and minimum 'entry stash' that the country requires. They have no reason and no means to get back - so pure economic necessity requires that they succeed and in five years they can put together a nestegg bigger than I could do in fifty. But the one's like me have an asset anchor that keeps them running the treadmill, trying to keep up, but knowing that somewhere over the water the majority of ordinary citizens are doing better and better every day.

It is rather hard to know that my whole life's worth is but three or four years average income in no 1 or 2.

Just one correction to your comment Vb:


Poor people move to where the resources are: Rich people move the cash resources to where the environment is best for them to make lots more and keep it even longer!

VB makes a very fair point there.
Since there are more poor than rich, the net migration would be to the wealthier countries.

But, not all poor people will move. And when the rich move they will take some (maybe not alot) of resources with them. If you don't believe this just look at how many countries are economically dependent upon tourism! If the rich can create resources just by going somewhere on a 2-week holiday, even more so if they migrate. That will stem the outward migration.

Now taking into consideration what Wrinkled is saying. The wealthy move just for the heck of it but the middle class are likely to stay put. The very poor can't even muster busfare to the nearest city much less be able to move very far (Now there's another factor - distance).

Then consider that resources could also move freely the other way.
A balance could be created!

Now looking at the CIA migration list. The figures are given in per thousand population. That can be a bit misleading. The number for Norway(2.09) is nearly as high as the one for the UK(2.2). But the population of Norway is 4.5million as opposed to 60million in the UK. So its a really big difference.

And wrinkled agrees with me that climate is a factor. There are certain qualities that some may not see as resources that can't be bought with money and will influence people.

2/3

Worgl was not the only place that this idea was tried. Every time it has been done there was huge improvements in the economy. Every time it has been done there was also anger and resistence by the banks and it was forcibly stopped.

One of the points that many people in authority now have to accept is that the poor people who do move are (generally)the more entrepreneurial. They are willing to take a risk and are willing to work hard to make a new life. However the authorities often portray migrants as people who want to live on state benefits.

The recent disaster in the UK when 19 Chinese cockle (shellfish)pickers were drowned in Morecambe bay showed that they had to work long hours at very low pay in a dangerous job to pay the people smugglers and crooks who had brought them into the country. They were from the same province in China as the people who were smothered to death in the container lorry which had crossed the channel a couple of years ago. Their province was known for its young people travelling abroad to build a better life for themselves.

I just had a look at the migration figures - what rubbish!
Zimbabwe, our northern neighbour has between 25-30% of it's population working OUTSIDE the country in South Africa, Botswana etc.
Now to split hairs - if I work outside my own country for eleven months of the year and spend one month at home, have I emigrated or not - am I just a migrant worker? As far as I know, most countries tax you as a resident if you are in the country for more than 6 months of the year (in SA now it's 3 months) - ergo I have taken up residence, ergo I have emigrated!

Could you clarify that for me please WR? Is it the case that if I live in SA for 4 months of the year and the UK for 8 SA law would say that I was now a resident of SA?