There are about 200 million people working abroad, which is a stable 3% of the world’s population. The money that these people send home is called remittances. Remittances can be viewed as a kind of development aid and is a very important bonus for the families that stayed behind in often impoverished countries. In fact, the total amount of remittances exceeds the value of official development aid (see a graph here).

However, remittances aren’t entirely positive, generally speaking. They are of course beneficial for those receiving them, but one shouldn’t overestimate their effectiveness in the fight against global poverty.

Disadvantages of remittances

• Most of the remittances do not go to the most needy. Poland and Mexico receive large chunks of total remittances; African countries much less.

remittances by destination

(source)

• Even the remittances that are sent to the poorest countries don’t necessarily benefit the poorest people in those countries. You need money to emigrate, hence migrants tend not to come from the poorest families.
• It’s impossible to target remittances towards development priorities.
• The emigration that is presupposed by remittances is often a brain drain, although not necessarily. Some groups of immigrants are above average in education, some are below.

Advantages of remittances

• The money goes directly and almost completely to the beneficiaries (minus the commission taken for the international payment by remittance agencies). This is not the case with official development aid where there’s always a margin taken by the overhead of aid agencies or NGOs.
• Similarly, there’s no part of the money deviated by corrupt officials, also contrary to official development aid which is often easier to steal.

All in all, remittances are a powerful, if not very accurate weapon in the fight against poverty. There is therefore a strong case in favor of allowing more migration and lowering the restrictions on the free movement of labor (see here). Migration can of course create problems (especially when it leads to cultural friction), but it is also a solution. The migrants themselves often have a better life. Around 75% of them go to countries with a higher score on the Human Development Index. Their families at home obviously benefit as well. And if we believe in trickle down economics (which we should to a limited extent) then we can assume that when these families have more money, the economy around them also benefits to some degree.

But there’s not only the money. There are also knowledge transfers, and we can reasonably hope that migration promotes intercultural understanding. It’s often easier to fear and hate what you don’t know. The countries of origin, which are often less free and democratic than the countries of destination, may also learn the benefits of freedom.

More on remittances. Some statistics and maps. More on migration. Something on the strange case of reverse remittances is here.

The 2009 Armenian National Science & Education Fund (ANSEF) grants have been awarded, and project follow-up has begun.  Earlier this month, members of the FAR Yerevan staff paid visits to many of Armenia’s finest scientific institutions including Yerevan State University, the Scientific Center of Biology and Hydro-ecology, the Scientific Technological Center of Organic and Pharmaceutical Chemistry and the Institute of Applied Problems of Physics, in order to check in with the scientist teams who received FAR’s ANSEF grants.

Mr. Ishkhanyan, ANSEF Grantee Scientist

Credit: FAR Staff

The FAR representatives met with 14 different scientific research groups, during which time the progress of each team project was discussed.  Through ANSEF, FAR provides scientists with funding, enabling them to pursue their scientific research in Armenia as opposed to leaving the nation in search of funding.  The goal of this project is to motivate Armenia’s greatest scientific talents to stay in Armenia, preventing the problem known unofficially as the “brain drain.”

Presentation at the Physics Research Laboratory

Credit: FAR Staff

A couple of days ago, I was sitting in my room, doing some useless, abortive stuff as usual, when one of my friends started a topic of discussion. There were 7 of us, say A, B, C, D, E, F and I. I do not remember how exactly the discussion started but one thing is for certain, that night was a very long night. All of us had our own views and none was willing to yield to the others’ arguments. The main topic of discussion was this: Should or should not Indians go abroad and settle there if it is more convenient to them? Effectively, it is the same as whether Brain Drain has a negative impact on the country or not.

B, being the root of most jokes cracked in the group, especially in connection to a certain girl named M, was the main target here. I was the only other guy supporting his claims. All others tried to refute our arguments resulting in a tedious, lengthy, intense battle to impose our beliefs on each other. When I joined the discussion, it had already heated up a bit. A and C were providing very strong opposition to B, at times going to the extent of ridiculing his statements and disdainfully ignoring his views. Poor B was attacked personally as well.

Heres what happened.

12:30 am

B: “I want to lead my life happily and comfortably. I am going to do whatever it takes to achieve that. I am not happy in this country, so I want to get out of here and go to a place where you get what you need.”
I didnt find anything wrong or offensive in what he said. Besides, my beliefs were in somewhat parallel terms. So, I started arguing for him. A had a problem with what B said.
A: “ It is because of people like you, ****ers like YOU, that the change, which was supposed to happen in this country is not happening. Do you know how many Indians go abroad and settle there every year? If all those ****ers had stayed behind and worked for our country, instead of boosting the GDP of other countries, India would have been in a better state today. And why arent you happy here? All of us are.”
I: “Dude do you really think all those people staying back would have helped the country? The porblem with this country is how it runs. Efficient people are not running it. Corrupt polticians are everywhere. All maggots who have no knowledge about the world whatsoever, just plenty of money to spare. The system is full of fatal flaws and is a total failure. They say the government is by the people. Do you think we can do anything to alter the way it is functioning? The answer is no, because the government is mainly elected by illiterate people who fall into their traps of false promises. And the government blissfully ignores the horrible literacy rate in this godforsaken country.”

At this point, E inturrepted and started saying something about peasants( the word horribly mispronounced) in the USA to which nobody paid much attention.
The argument continued with nobody reaching a conclusion and no one yielding.

1:30 am

C: “Dude, if all the people who went and settled in other countries stayed back, the literacy rate would have been better and if learned people like IITians and ‘NITians’ enter politics instead of running behind money, there would have been a better government and considerable change would have taken place.”
I: “Dude it is easier said than done. Do you think you are going to enter politics after finishing college?”
B: “If you give a beggar in India a good house and a sexy wife in London, do you think he is going to go or is he going to say this is my country, i do not want to leave it?”
C: “Why would I give a beggar here a good house in London, you dumbass!!!”

At this point, an isolated, moronic retard who, unfortunately, dwells close to my room, after hearing all the commotion so late in the night, entered the scene. Let us name him SUCKER.

SUCKER: “Abbey idhar sun. If all this discussion doesnt give you any joy, whats the point of the discussion?”

Then, he gave an expression of pride and when everyone ignored him, he left the room.

After hearing the noise coming from our room, G entered and wanted to argue against B and I.

G: “See man, if you go to Amul and ask people not to throw plastic near the footpath, dont you think it is gonna make a difference after sometime? It might not make an impact on most people, but atleast one or two will realise that what they are doing is not right. It is upto our hands to take responsibility and spread awareness in our country. Change is a gradual process and change will come. You cant expect it come overnight.”

Then, he went on to speak about how he was responsible for having a shopkeeper fined by the consumer court and other shit like that.

2:30 am-E and F were asleep by now

B: “ If God gives a beggar in India a good house and a sexy wife in London, do you think he is going to go or is he going to say this is my country, il do not want to leave it?”
D: “ WTF are you talking about? How would a beggar get a house in London all of a sudden?”
I: “A hypothetical situation dude. Dont you think he would choose a path more convenient to him? If he has got nothing out of this country, wouldnt he want to go out if hes got a chance?”
B: “ Just answer my question dude. If God gives a beggar in India a good house and a sexy wife in London, do you think he is going to go or is he going to say this is my country, i do not want to leave it.”
C: “Of course he is going to go.”
B: “So, if and when you guys get opportunities in other countries to lead your life better, why wouldnt you want to go? All this country concept is bullshit dude.”

Now, D was pissed off.

D: “All you do is Slog, see M. Slog,see M. Sleep. What other better work do you have? You dont have the right to talk about anything we do. You are a ****ing traitor. Get the **** out of here. Atleast we will try to improve this country.”

The next one hour went by as a discussion was going on about how shit is prevalent in this country and nobody is ready is clean it, most people think it is not their job and go out of the country to make their lives better, not caring for those who are directly affected by the shit.

3:30 am

G: “Guys, let us do this. From now on, whenever we go to Amul and see someone throwing plastic on the streets, let us make it our duty to remind him/her of the ill effects of plastic littering. Let us see if there is any change after 2 weeks. OK?”

I still do not understand why this guy was so obsessed with Amul.

Anyway, when everyone agreed, G claimed that the discussion had been concluded (I do not understand how) and suggested we all go to bed. So, G left.

But, we continued anyway. B continued with his Beggar Philosophy. I said I believe in my principles and I am going to follow them. A appeared to be highly ‘patrioic’ and said we can clean the shit that is sinking our country. As for C and D, they said they are going to stay here no matter what. So, we went to bed a 4 30 am, not because the discussion had ended, but because we were too tired and sleepy to continue any further.

A dialogue from one of my favourite movies, Scent of a woman, comes to my mind when I look back at this argument. Al Pacino as Lt.Col. Frank Slade says, “ I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew which the right path was. Without exception I knew. But, I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard.” I have to disagree with him on this. Whenever a path is hard, it cannot be the right path. The right path is one which conveniently and easily brings happiness in life.

Adios.

I can’t sleep, so I’m just going to try to write a bunch of stuff in the hopes that it will tire me out a bit (much like a child having a tantrum and falling asleep), and also to dump a bit of the anxiety out of my head.  Thus, I apologize for typos or lines that aren’t quite as clever as I’d like them to be, but this is simply my way of talking to no one in particular that doesn’t make me seem crazy, because theoretically, someone is bound to read this eventually (thanks Mom and future wifey!).

And no, Mom and future wifey are not the same person, as I’m sure everyone knows.  My, how horrifically Oedipal.

So, I have an interview tomorrow in a pretty good district, but it’s not even to finish the year, which means that I’m entering in December, staying through part of May, and then letting someone else give a final on a whole bunch of stuff that I taught in a way that they didn’t teach it, which I’m sure is hellish for youngins.

Okay, topic change.  I tend to find that there are two kinds of people when it comes to me: people who like me, and people who can’t stand me.  There tends to be very little middle ground, with people who find me charming on one hill, and people who find me obnoxious or, as one person recently described me, “hopeless.”

The sad thing is that I sometimes have trouble realizing the difference between the two, as even the rudest among us is unlikely to outright say, “I’m sorry, but I really don’t like you.  Can you please stop talking to me as if we’re friends?”  It is in this context that I admit something which everyone that knows me is already keenly aware of, and it’s something that I need to work on myself: I try way, way too hard and care way, way too much about people liking me.  I can’t make one joke and then shut the hell up, but instead, I have to make twenty and quickly take the train from Charmingville to Annoyingtwitburg.

And frankly, I’m sorry to any people that I’ve annoyed.  I really am.

Well, not former students.  You guys were annoyed because, “Boo hoo, he’s trying to teach us stuff, why can’t we just do nothing everyday and curse in class and wear shirts with beer logos?  Teachers are dumb.”  It was a pleasure annoying all of you, really.

But I’m nervous about this interview, which now takes place in, oh, 7 hours and 45 minutes.  I think that I can answer the interview questions well enough, but this is the only interview I have lined up, and it’s getting to the point where the next openings I find are going to be in April for the 2010-2011 school year.  That’s a bit scary.

Also, Christine just sent me a message on gchat that said, “So, what are you doing, sitting in the dark typing an emo Facebook note?”

She’s pretty good.  I don’t know if this is that emo, though.

I once had a student who had the beginning e-mail address of “cheerupemokid.”  That always made me crack a smile.

This whole thing has been fairly nonsensical and nonsequitorial (which I don’t think is a word, but it kind of fits), but I knew it would be.  I ramble and I roll, and I hope that maybe someone can make a lick of sense out of the idiocy that I spew.  Yes, I complain, and I mope, and I rattle about how much I suck or how much people suck and yadda yadda yadda, but sometimes, we need to write for ourselves, and not for anyone else.

Of course, that doesn’t stop us from posting it on the Internet for everyone to read, thus showing our hypocrisy.  And, apparently, our multiple personality disorder, if we keep referring to ourselves as “we.”

That, or we’re Venom.  Or Queen Victoria.

And, that’s enough for one night.  I think I feel a little better, and it’s getting very, very late for someone that has to wake up at grown-up time.  So, I will say “goodnight” in the hopes that it takes, and leave it at that for now.

The BC Liberal government has been playing a “shell game” with arts funding – that is, moving funds around by sleight-of-hand. And as it moves funds around, it manages to reduce their total sum at every step, meanwhile pretending that this is not in fact happening (see video above). This explanation was first printed here.

First, you need to know that arts are funded via 3 sources in BC. These are the 3 “shells” in the shell game:

1. Gaming funds. These are known as “Direct Access” funds and derive from lotteries and gambling. (There are also funds from Bingo, and these are on the verge of being cut too). All of these funds are mandated to be distributed directly to arts organizations and other charities; gambling was only legalized in this province with the understanding that a significant proportion of gambling/gaming monies would be returned to charities in the communities.

2. BC tax revenues, distributed to the arms-length BC Arts Council (BCAC), which in turn distributes funds to artists and arts organizations. The government also on occasion distributes our tax money directly (not necesssarily through the BCAC) to special festivals or one-time events or special projects.

3. The 150 Cultural Fund. This was a $150 million endowment to the BC Arts Council in 2008 (BC’s 150th birthday) meant to generate at least 7.5 million annually for the BCAC. Due to the economic downturn it generated only about $3.5 million last year, but even 7.5 million wouldn’t be enough to fund the BCAC. It’s not a cash infusion and as far as arts organizations are concerned, it’s unavailable.

Now, how were the cuts made and how was the shell game played? … cont’d.

1. The first move: On August 30, at 5 pm on a Friday, Rich Coleman, Minister of Gaming, retracted virtually all the Direct Access gaming funds from the arts organizations to which they are usually given, and to which they had been more or less promised. Most of these organizations had relied on this seemingly secure money for many years. Coleman later gave a little of this money back to some of the organizations – but only to those on a “multi-year” contract – and that’s why the public mistakenly believed all the money had been returned. Most organizations, however, were not on a multi-year contract. It should be noted that Coleman abruptly retracted promised funds from the non-multi-year organizations only months before their fiscal year-ends, throwing them into immediate financial crisis. (Many of these have already shut down, creating instant unemployment.)

2. In September, the government also announced it was cutting most of its funding to the BC Arts Council (this traditionally comes from tax revenue money, as opposed to Gaming money). This portion was approx 18.5 million annually before cuts (extremely low compared to all other Canadian provinces), and has now been reduced to a couple million. To see these cuts visually, see Arts Cuts Data Visualizations, which are based on the BC Liberals’ own budget service plans, and which starkly show how radical the cuts are. Note that these visualizations don’t include the Gaming cuts above, since the gov’t doesn’t provide visualizable, publicly available data for Gaming (and that’s yet another concern re: Gaming).

3. Next, the government then moved a little of the Gaming (“Direct Access”) money it had just retracted from arts organizations in Point 1 above, and put a tiny amount of it back into the BC Arts Council or toward special arts projects. While this may have looked like an infusion of money, it all still amounts to a net deficit for the sector. Implying that these were “additional” funds was the first part of Krueger’s lie of omission.

4. The second part of the lie of omission involves “the 150″, the $150 million Cultural Fund endowment (this is what Alma Lee is talking about here). Krueger has stated that the Liberals have put $150 million into the arts, for a net gain – but a) that amount was endowed in 2008, and b) it’s not $150 million in cash for the arts – it’s just numbers on paper. It’s an endowment that was only meant to yield 7.5 million annually, and thanks to recession produced only $3.5 million this year. It was deceptive in more than one way for Krueger to imply the Liberals put 150 million into the BCAC this year.

Some important conclusions:

1. Arts Minister Krueger is being deceptive when he implies in the video above that the Liberals have “flowed more money” into the BCAC this year and are therefore supporting the arts. Putting part of the confiscated gaming money into the BCAC and pretending that it’s an “addition” of money is a mistruth, and saying the government has “flowed” 150 million into the arts, is misleading. The BC Arts Council has been gutted.

2. The government is moving to an Alberta model of arts funding, in which no tax dollars to to arts funding; only gaming/lottery funds do. The only difference is that Alberta puts in much more gaming revenue than B.C., while the amount of Gaming funding going to the arts here is dwindling to nothing. Funding arts only with gaming is a whole other concerning issue for a number of reasons including that Gaming funds are not subject to the same rules as regular tax funding and are not entirely transparent.

3. All you really need to know, no matter what Minister Krueger says, is that the cuts this year amount to 50% and by 2010-11 the proposed cuts amount to almost 92%.

4. As an aside, selling BC Rail for what it was worth, rather than for $1, would have funded all of these organizations easily, for many years, as would all of the money spent on the Olympics.

Lastly, who’s the real arts minister? Why are people saying the Gaming minister is the de facto arts minister?

Rich Coleman, Minister responsible for Gaming, is now being considered the “de facto arts minister” because Gaming now provides virtually all of the remaining arts funding, and he has influence over what Gaming will fund. Coleman is a former RCMP officer from Abbotsford. His new Gaming priorities include such things as cadets. Within his newly prioritized list of charities to be funded by Gaming, the arts are being dropped to the bottom. His letter explaining this is here (and it’s one of many sources of the fallacy that arts are in competition with starving children). The lotteries made almost 2 billion last year but only a tiny portion of that, less than 200 million, was going to charity – and now much, much less than that (total cuts to be known when the budget is released). The rest will flow directly into general tax revenue, something that most provinces and nations frown on. Governments should not fund their budgets with the gambling losses of their own citizens but through other means such as, for example, adequate corporate taxes. The citizens of BC public did not legalize gambling with the idea it would fill the budget; gambling’s dirtiness was justified only by the fact that its proceeds went to charities benefitting arts, sports, children’s activites such as

Further questions about this? Write to us and we’ll give you as much information as we can find.

Over at Michigan Radio’s promising new project Generation Y Michigan about convincing Generation Y-ers like yours truly to stay in the state, Lauren Silverman (of whom I’m totally jealous since she gets to do this as an intern with Michigan Radio) posts about Michigan’s brain drain and the problems that it causes for the state’s hopes for a recovery. It’s a good summary of the issue, and I encourage you to read it. I do have one bone to pick, though, with this paragraph:

Michigan has 15 public universities that serve almost 300,000 students each year. But almost half of these students leave the state after they graduate. That means Michigan has the 8th worst migration rate in the nation. Even South Dakota, Alabama and Idaho do a better job keeping college graduates in their states.

I think that this overstates the situation a bit. It seems like a false analogy between Michigan and South Dakota, Alabama, and Idaho since our state has two public institutions that are indisputably better than any school in those three states. The University of Michigan and Michigan State both have the ability to draw in talented students from other states that universities in those states lack. This means, in turn, that we have more students who will leave the state after graduating. After all, their families reside in California, Massachusetts, or some other state, so those places have a draw that Michigan cannot match. This is the price that we pay for having universities that can draw from wealthy areas across the country.

I need one. I think the cobwebs are finally taking over in my gray matter. I can’t seem to get busy on writing or anything else for that matter.

There were 19 big-ass turkeys in my front field this morning. You think that I could come up with something to write about them. Maybe, later.

So, I’m taking the wuss way out again and posting something that I got in my email.

Monday was TPKen’s birthday. Every year, it gets harder and harder to come up with a birthday gift for him. He’s one of those guys that goes out and buys whatever he needs or WANTS for himself. I’ve always thought that this was a selfish thing for people to do. When they know that their birthday, Christmas, etc. is fast approaching and they already have bought themselves what they want when they want it. It leaves family and friends out in the cold scratching their heads to come up with a gift idea.

So, this year, I decided that I was just not going to worry about it. He has done this for our entire marriage.

Monday evening I ran out and bought him some Levi’s, a book, and some candy.

He needed new jeans.

He didn’t like the book. How convenient it was for me that it was one that I had been wanting to read. “snicker”

He didn’t like the candy. Can you believe it that it just happened to be one of my favorites. “snicker snicker”

I’m on to something here. I can’t wait for Christmas!!!!

This map clearly shows that the Bluegrass is losing educated people.  (red = increase in college graduates; blue = decrease)  We have more in common with Youngstown than Raleigh.

This is important whether one believes in the creative class theory of economic development or that we need educated people to help us with the transition.  Either way, we’re losing out.  Read the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33499687/

Tax competition is an issue that arouses passion on both sides of the debate. Libertarians and other free-market advocates welcome tax competition as a way of restraining the greed of politicians. Governments have lowered tax rates in recent decades, for instance, because politicians are afraid that the geese that lay the golden eggs can fly across the border. But collectivists despise tax competition – for exactly the same reason. They want investors, entrepreneurs, and companies to passively serve as free vending machines, dispensing never-ending piles of money for politicians. So when a left-wing group puts together a ranking of the world’s “top secrecy jurisdictions” in hopes of undermining tax competition, proponents of individual freedom can use that list as a guide to world’s most investor-friendly nations. The good news is that an American state, Delaware, is number one on the list. And since being a tax haven is a magnet for investment, this is good news for U.S. competitiveness. The bad news is that American taxpayers are not allowed to benefit from many of Delaware’s “tax haven” policies. Here’s what a left-wing columnist in the United Kingdom wrote about the issue:

You’re a billionaire but you don’t want anyone, least of all the taxman, to know. What do you do? Head for a palm-fringed island paradise or a snow-covered Alpine micro-state? Wrong. The world’s most opaque jurisdictions – the ones that will best shield you and your cash from the light – are mostly in the heart of the most sophisticated and powerful global financial centres. London, Luxembourg and Zurich are in the top five most secretive jurisdictions, according the first comprehensive index of financial transparency ever compiled. Yet top of the pile, beating the British Virgin Islands, Belize or Liechtenstein as the best place to hide wealth, is Delaware. One of the smallest states in the US, it offers the best protection for anyone who does not want to disclose their identity as a beneficial owner of a company. That is one very good reason why the East Coast state hosts 50% of the US’s quoted firms and 650,000 companies – almost equivalent to one company per Delaware resident. …Delaware – the political power-base of the US vice-president, Joe Biden – offers high levels of banking secrecy and does not make details of trusts, company accounts and beneficial ownership a matter of public record. Delaware also allows companies to re-domicile within its borders with minimal disclosure, and allows the existence of privacy-enhancing “protected cell” or “segregated portfolio” companies, among many other stratagems useful for protecting the identity of those who do business there.

Politicians understand the economic impact of taxation when it serves their interests. They often brag about raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking. It’s not their business to dictate private behavior, of course, but they are right about higher taxes leading to less smoking (they also lead to more cigarette smuggling, but that’s a separate issue). Those same politicians, however, conveniently forget about the economic effect of taxes when they impose high tax rates on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. Or maybe they simply don’t care. But as is explained in the Wall Street Journal, taxes on productive behavior matter a lot. More than one million people have escaped New York this decade, and punitive taxes clearly have played a role in this brain drain to other states:

Between 2000 and 2008, the Empire State had a net domestic outflow of more than 1.5 million, the biggest exodus of any state, with most hailing from New York City. The departures also have perilous budget consequences, since they tend to include residents who are better off than those arriving. Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in. In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from 2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. …no single reason can be fingered for a million migrants seeking their fortunes across state lines, but one place to start is New York’s notorious state and local tax burden. According to the Tax Foundation, between 1977 and 2008, New York has ranked first or second in the country for its state-local tax burden compared to the U.S. average. In the years considered by the Empire Center study, New York’s state and local tax burden ranged between 11% and 12% of income. The peak year for taxes, 2004, was followed by the peak year for departures—as New York lost nearly 250,000 people to other states in 2005. And that’s before another big tax hike this year. That pattern is consistent with the annual migration patterns, showing that highly taxed and economically lackluster states were most likely to end up in residents’ rear view mirrors. According to the annual study by United Van Lines, states like New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois have been big losers in recent years. …Liberals continue to insist that they can raise taxes ever higher without any effect on behavior, but the New York study is one more piece of evidence that this is a destructive illusion.

From Iran today:

Yes, there are many mothers (and fathers) who do not like the system. But most people here feel helpless to change the situation. and many feel that if they complain the school will take it out on their kids. So they remain silent and eventually find a way to get their kids out of the country. There is a huge brain flight from Iran (which has been going on for years). Many people leave for themselves, but many leave to save their kids.

The school officials are also not always totally to blame as they have horrendous requirements placed upon them that they are required to fulfill – requirements not appropriate for children. I am getting ready to homeschool if I have to. It would require a huge change in my life here this year, but all of our sanities are much more important than anything else. One of our friends here homeschooled her son in 4th grade because of problems in the school. She found a better place for him in 5th grade. We’ll see.

We have a tutor who likes working with our kids and is a teacher in my son’s school. She said she’d talk with the teacher herself. As for the rest of it – I’ll put up a fuss. That usually brings about some positive results – but not many.

One of the biggest problems here is the isolation Iran has created for itself.  While many people know theoretically how to create better schools for the kids and how to teach better, the people who actually have to put it into practice were all trained under such a system and have no clue how to do it differently. So even though you train a teacher, because he or she has not seen anything different, they don’t know how to do it (or that it can even be done differently or better). Most people who go overseas go for engineering or medicine, or some “important” degree. No one goes overseas to study education. While education is highly valued here, teaching itself is not a valued profession in this country, nor is it an even decently paid profession. If people could get out and about and see it done differently that would go a long way to improve the entire system here. But again – the government does not want any “cultural invasion” going on – even if it would benefit their children – and of course, forced religion is part of the system here and while it has never worked any place else in the long term, they would never accept that.

I voted for cap and trade and all I got was this stupid fur jacket

Pew Poll: Republicans smarter than Democrats who are dumber than dirt. Libertarians, on the other hand, tested smarter than everyone except Cos Cobbers (who were flunking until they were given crayons in place of pens).

What is happening?

Not too long ago (in June 09) , we have the collapse of a stadium

I have written a post on this collapse ( “fall roof and pothole syndrome” ) and I have said this:  ’be careful when you step into a new public building, and be prepared to run the race of your life if you see any cracks appearing before you’.

Now, another disaster has happened. A suspension bridge, newly built, collapsed resulting in the death of 1 student and another 2 are still missing.

pic from nanyang

Apparently, one side of the support was pulled out together with the concrete foundation , just like a weed pulled out from a grass field. But this is no weed. This is a suspension bridge made of metal on a concrete foundation. How could this ever happen?

I have seen  bridges in China that are already many many hundreds of years old and not even made of concrete, but of stones lining against each other.

Take an example. This bridge in China is already many hundred years old. It is still as solid and as safe as before..

or this

 A wood bridge many many years old but still as solid and trustworthy as before..

The bridge builders now have access to modern technology, modern design, modern science and modern tools to make safe bridges, and yet they cannot even made a bridge that is safe for students to cross.

So something is very wrong. Very very wrong somewhere. We do not even need the AUditor General  to report . 

We can safely conclude  that there is definitely negligence  somewhere or ‘corner-cutting’ for this 1 bridge to collapse. And because of this negligence/corner-cutting , lives are lost.

Imagine, if you are the parents and friends of these parents, what would you feel? Probably blaming themselves for sending the children to the so-called 1Malaysia camp. To these children and parents  , it might as  well be a death camp..Sorry, I am using harsh words, but I am very upset to see innocent lives being lost, because of ’ tidak  apa’ attidtude or ‘greed’.

I hope that a thorough investigation can be carried out. Not only that , a new system of awarding contract and supervision must be put in place, a system that ensures that good practice are being put in place and follows strict guidelines in constructions and buildings.

Over all, we need to urgently do away with the ‘rot’ culture, and bring back some semblance of excellence fast.

recommended reading: Manhole syndrome

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.

— Henry David Thoreau

In “The New Untouchables “, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman argues that in this downwardly mobile economy there is no room for average. Extraordinary is what it takes to survive and thrive in the modern workplace.

I get that.

Yet for all my appreciation for education — I hold two degrees so I do, in fact, lean in favor of Friedman’s premise that education is key to American competitiveness — his education-as-a-panacea argument oversteps its reach.

Most strikingly, Friedman’s description of a successful “untouchable” American worker isn’t a portrait of educational endowment at all. Friedman’s favorite descriptors, instead, refer to personality attributes: entrepreneur (risk taker), creative (visionary), analytical (critical thinker), and persuasive (charismatic). The obvious problem with Friedman’s pin-the-tail-on-the-wrong-donkey premise is that temperament is inborn — teachers, let alone parents, cannot instill personality characteristics that are not there to begin with.

Friedman’s eagerness to finger the usual suspects — schools — also ignores six reasons why Americans are at a competitive disadvantage in the global era. Here we examine those realities, and the future these changing times have in store.

First, there are more of us occupying this country — and this planet at large — than ever before. At some point, the mathematics of population growth have to matter. The sheer number of people in today’s workforce suggests more and more people are competing for the same jobs even as we adopt more and more technology to displace human hands. That’s not a sign of a lack of education; it’s a sign that business owners comprehend that productivity gadgets and gizmos don’t require breaks, a salary or workers’ compensation.

It comes down to the numbers.

Second, I would argue the inverse in response to Friedman’s suggestion that there just isn’t enough talent to be had here in the States. Over the past 50-some years there are more colleges turning out more graduates on an annual basis than employers of the past had access to. Many foreign nationals, in fact, come to the US for higher education opportunities. On the flip side, there are only so many engineers, M.B.A.s, lawyers, scientists and the like universities can churn out before higher-end fields become saturated in much the same way low-end jobs are chalk full of contenders.

It’s no longer merely a question of whether there are clear winners and losers on the academic front.

Job scarcity is a threat, in part, because of the decades-long trend of mergers, acquisitions and a globalized labor pool. Consider: There are generally fewer than a dozen heavyweights in a given industry — everything from mainstream media to appliance manufacturing. This trend does not bode well for domestic job expansion. And if jobs aren’t available to begin with, it is tough to gain a competitive advantage even with above-average potential. So what we are seeing, in this author’s opinion, is an over-supply of talent.

But that doesn’t mean the proponents of Friedman’s dire self-fulfilling prophecy won’t get their wish.

With less competition in a given industry there is less demand for the eager young grads institutions of higher learning infuse into the job market each year. With shrinking demand and a greater supply of contenders, salaries may also take a nosedive. America at large may become competitively disadvantaged in the years ahead precisely because the “good jobs” of today are no longer perceived as a source of steady employment or adequate pay thereby diminishing American college students’ willingness to pursue them.

Already, the very cure that causes the “employment insecurity” disease is well underway: Calls for immigration reform permitting more foreign grads to take up permanent residence in the U.S. as a form of “insourced talent” are originating from Google, Microsoft and Susan Hockfield, MIT president and author of an October 19, 2009 Wall Street Journal opinion piece ironically titled “Immigrants Create Jobs and Win Nobels“.

Sure there are a lot of average people who aren’t cut out for the highest levels of business, government and academia. Just the same, there is also an ample supply of bright, talented American citizens who, for all their desirable qualifications and qualities, will nevertheless find themselves competing toe-to-toe against peers who are just as capable and “deserving” of a career break as they are.

Somebody has to lose.

Third, failure to thrive in this Brave New Economy isn’t always linked to failing schools, as Friedman argues. Good health is arguably the number one prerequisite to productivity. Healthcare is such a hot topic precisely because we cannot remain competitive if, as a country, businesses and individuals are increasingly diverting money out of the real economy just to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

Beyond that, few esoteric explanations matter when perfectly down-to-earth explanations suffice. When an individual charged with hiring decisions has too many promising applicants to choose from among, what assets wins out on the last round of interviews? That extra year or two of experience? Those additional GPA points? Or would it be more honest to conclude that it comes down to how well an applicant clicks with his or her interviewers? Hands-on experience, even a social or physical attribute — whatever it may be that fits a manager’s self-styled view of the proper candidate — is just as likely to make the deciding difference.

On the flip side of the coin, there is a perverse disincentive to hire the best qualified candidates. For one, they tend to be more experienced and/or highly educated, thereby commanding greater salaries. For another, few people in the position to do so hire individuals with the obvious capacity to perform so impressively that it will ultimately threaten their own job security. Friedman is right in the sense that education and talent ought to insulate Americans from the pitfalls of a failing global experiment.

Unfortunately, it does not.

Fourth, where one lives also figures largely into one’s ability to compete. Like the tough-luck stories that abound on the streets of Hollywood, those who flock to saturated markets — Los Angeles, New York, etc. — may, ironically, find fewer opportunities to leave a lasting, positive impression due to the sheer number of people in the area who are equally worthy of consideration. An over-supply of applicants for a given position, in turn, may make it more challenging for employers to select optimal talent vs. expedient talent. Translation? Being a big fish in a vast ocean still makes you a little fish. To argue, therefore, that education can somehow imbue success and that lack of it underlies a failure is a misnomer.

It’s impossible to underestimate the economics of supply and demand.

Fifth, it’s a mistake to assume that a Third World factory worker is more “competitive” as Todd Martin, former PepsiCo and Kraft Europe executive, suggests to Friedman. Third World workers come inexpensively, and that’s one competitive disadvantage that will only heighten the more educated the American workforce becomes. Why? Because talent doesn’t come cheaply — nor do the salaries of increasingly educated job seekers struggling to repay oppressive student loan debts as a direct result of their herculean efforts to rise head-and-shoulders above the crowd.

Getting noticed in an increasingly competitive job market only ups the ante — and the price tag of success.

Sixth, the assumption that Third World products are better made by virtue of their “efficiency” is also flawed. When frequent replacements and upgrades are factored into the cost of ownership, inexpensively manufactured Third World goods are, ironically, quite pricey. Case-in-point: In 2005 I replaced a 30-some-year-old GE refrigerator made in the US as well as an old but functioning washer and dryer. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t trade anything old and working for something new, sleek and modern. Why? Because the major appliances I purchased new in 2005 — all have had repeated major breakdowns requiring multiple service calls, dozens of hours on the phone, weeks waiting for parts.

Even when consumers spend top dollar, the manufacturing source and quality of today’s big-ticket items are often quite similar — with merely a change of window dressing to imply otherwise. That’s what happens when there are so many market consolidations that an appearance of choice is just that: little more than a dozen or so name badges owned, in truth, by the same handful of Big Players. It is almost laughable the degree to which consumers on complaint websites proclaim that they will never buy brand “X” again, only to unwittingly state that they intend to replace such-and-such item with brand “Y” — yet another brand or subsidiary of the very same company who manufactures brand X!

Market concentration doesn’t grow jobs any more reliably than it promotes healthy competition.

Sparing one another the hassle and headaches of poor quality goods isn’t the only reason to care, however. The build-it-to-last ethic of decades past was, perhaps, the ultimate expression of “Green“. Why? Because durable goods were seemingly less likely to break down, destined for a landfill in an absurdly short timeframe. By contrast, “planned obsolescence” is the new norm, with a trend of shrinking manufacturer warranties to attest to the low vote of confidence manufacturers assign to their own products. Longevity isn’t a valued trait in a disposable society, but if we really want to go Green perhaps we should rethink the “dept-trap consumerism” cheaply designed and manufactured products facilitate. Sadly, modern rhetoric would have us believe that pride in one’s workmanship — a refusal to sell junk to unsuspecting consumers — is “uncompetitive”.

All talk of going Green aside, standardized manufacturing processes have made it difficult to make the case that company “A” is making a better product than “B” or “C”. Consequently, the maxim “You get what you pay for” has never been more suspect. True, you may get more for your money, but that does not necessarily translate into significantly better quality. What differs most dramatically is the amount of money corporations throw into slick ad campaigns, and the perception consumers have of branding and value.

It would be one thing if high-end boutiques were selling products made by First World craftspeople with higher price tags thanks to First World production costs. But when both low-end retailers and high-end retailers are selling inexpensively made foreign goods, who, exactly, are they fooling? Fairly or not, Third World origination suggests that income and human rights disparities favor corporate bottom lines. In the Third World, after all, it is not uncommon for workers to be denied bathroom breaks, sick days, maternity leave and most of the other benefits and protections Americans consider “civilized”. It is not surprising, then, that workers are more productive when they spend most of their lives in the confines of a factory, fearful that their only other option is a life of abject poverty and/or prostitution.

In short, the Third World is the modern-day economic equivalent of the pre-Civil War Old South: a place for slave-like child and adult labor, often conducted under sweatshop conditions. As if that weren’t questionable enough, outsourcing trends pose an unacceptable risk to national security as well.

So how does all of this tie in?

Unless Americans are willing to stoop to similar lows to compete with workers abroad, it’s not possible to rationally conclude that education, talent or entrepreneurship on the part of American workers will level the economic playing field anytime soon. America’s competitive disadvantage, rather, speaks to corporate opportunism — and to the politicians in recent decades who have crafted immigration, economic, trade and taxation policies that have enabled such heavily skewed commerce to become the norm.

Moreover, if being properly educated, creative or analytical adequately described, as Friedman suggests, the entirety of American competitiveness, I suspect we would see fewer reckless gambles on Wall Street and more evidence of long-range thinkers putting the brakes on short-term gain (scams) in the lead up to the Great Recession. In the real world, however, the “right reasons” are not always the cause for getting ahead — or, conversely, for falling behind.

THE WAKE UP CALL

So why care whether or not a newspaper columnists gets it so wrong? Because generalizations and simplifications aren’t a starting point for progress. Economists are projecting a ~10 percent national unemployment rate that’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. That can only mean more bankruptcies, more foreclosures and a greater amount of “dead weight” on America’s ability to compete. Only by taking a long, hard look at the unvarnished truth do we have any hope of fingering the right culprits, crafting the right solutions and ultimately reviving Main Street before the American Dream becomes a distant memory of a bygone era.

Doing nothing is not an option.

If Middle Class wages continue to decline as we move further into the 21st Century, who will consume the products and services entrepreneurs on both sides of the oceanic divide offer? Will young Americans, contemplating the grimness of their economic future and/or the need for ever-more costly and impressive academic résumés opt for traditional marriage and family life — the nation’s greatest driver of new purchases, everything from strollers and diapers to single family homes and minivans? Should Main Street’s economic House of Cards continue to crumble, will Third World workers have their own Friedmans urging them to blame themselves when factory orders dwindle and the newly affluent in Asia and India begin to see their own hopes and dreams falter? Or will they see it — we see it — for what it is: globalized economic forces beyond any single individual’s immediate control?

As kind-hearted as sweatshop proponents paint it — that throwing out more life preservers will rescue Third World residents from a life of “primitive agriculture” — building more life preservers than boats is a plausible scenario. Economic growth, after all, relies on expansion. For much of the world’s history markets were local, national, then regional. Globalization isn’t a sure-fire path to success: It’s an experiment that presupposes that natural resources will support endless growth. And it begs a simple but profound question: What happens when all markets are tapped out?

Working and Middle Class people — the majority of us — may not be the most educated, creative or adequately prepared lot, to hear Friedman and his corporate pal, Todd Martin, hash it out. But that doesn’t change the reality that the American Middle Class must earn a living wage in order for the economy — ours and theirs — to thrive. Yet it is telling that in Louisiana, a state with fewer college grads to begin with, Curt Eysink, director of the Louisiana Workforce Commission, indicates that there is an oversupply of degreed residents “we cannot employ” because job growth projections favor vocational trades and the service sector — primarily low-wage occupations such as ticket-takers, cashiers and customer service representatives that are not so prone to the insourcing/outsourcing phenomena.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Without the discretionary income Middle Class Joes and Janes inject into the marketplace, globalized economies may become relegated to a small percentage of elite income earners pitching their products and services to other elite individuals. This may be a recipe for modern-day feudalism, but it’s no way to protect and preserve the merits of free-market capitalism, let alone a profitable market share.

As dire as it all sounds, this isn’t about being pessimistic. Opening our collective eyes is the first step in defending what matters most: family, community, culture — the United States itself. If that means rethinking our definition of progress in the 21st Century sans the usual set of partisan blinders, so be it.

This is no time for subterfuge.

If Friedman wishes to talk about education, he ought to contemplate the wisdom no book learning apparently can impart in America’s best and brightest CEOs and newspaper columnists: The foresight to realize one’s employees/coworkers are also one’s customers/consumers. That means that success at the top of the economic pyramid is only as long-lived as the Middle Class foundation upon which it rests. Excuse it, deny it, defend it, ignore it: the race to the bottom is a very real risk when good intentions go too far.

It’s foolhardy — and a threat to democracy itself — for a transnational conglomerate, an economy, a nation, to conduct business using the lowest common denominator as a competitive yardstick. And yet, globalization promises to outsource gain even as it insources pain. At best, this implies that if and when international economic and trade equilibrium is achieved Third World laborers will nevertheless be unable to sustain the lifestyle Americans have taken for granted — if only by virtue of how thin finite natural resources are stretched — whereas Americans should anticipate “economic insecurity” as a way of life. That’s why Friedman and friends argue so passionately that being wildly successful — untouchable thanks to one’s creativity, innovativeness and education — is the only position of safety (familiarity). The rest of us, apparently, are destined for a mediocre economic melting pot in a neocapitalist New World Order.

Cliché though it may sound, the proactive response to an uncertain future is civic engagement: voting wisely with one’s ballot and one’s pocketbook in support the kind of economy one wishes to see. For if there’s any silver lining to this Great Recession, it’s in bringing an abstract global issue close enough to home that we can reach out, touch it — and change it.

It’s not too late.

###

Resources:

America Out of Work: Is Double-Digit Unemployment Here to Stay?/TIME

Obama Adviser Summers Rejects ‘New Normal’ of Slow U.S. Growth/Bloomberg

U.S. Job Seekers Exceed Openings by Record Ratio/NYT

Are You Prepared for a Jobs Depression?/ere.net

How Long will America Lead the World?/Newsweek

Cap and Trade Dementia/The American Spectator

Schools As Scapegoats/The American Prospect

Is it Time to Retrain Business Schools?/NYT

Go Global, Young Manager!/Financial Post

Is a College Degree Worthless?/MSN Money

Don’t Get That College Degree!/NY Post

Cat Gets GED: Why GPAs, Degrees and Job Titles May Be Worthless/ITBusinessEdge

Too Many Doctorates Chase Too Few Jobs/San Francisco Chronical

The Three-Year Solution/Newsweek

Asking for Student Loan Forgiveness/Businessweek

Middle Class Facing Decline in Expectations, Economic Power/Retail Traffic

21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness/PDF

Jay Mathews: Why I don’t Like 21st Century Reports/Washington Post

Friedman: U.S. Education System Endangering Global Competitiveness/Education Futures

A New Look at American Competitiveness/Entrepreneurship

The World’s New Superpower/Salon

The Almighty Renminbi?/NYT

The End of the Dollar Spells the Rise of a New Order/The Independent (UK)

China will Overtake America, the Only Question is When/The Independent (UK)

China’s Economy/Brookings Institution

Lax Oversight, Globalization Erode Product Safety/CNN

Technology Made to be Broken/CSMonitor

Appliance Anxiety — Replace It or Fix It?/NYT

The brain drain

Many developing and underdeveloped countries are suffering from the brain drain phenomenon. African countries in particular are loosing people with technical qualifications and experience that have been acquired through enormous public funds. It is worth noting that macroeconomic factors and political dynamics are widely mentioned while micro-economic factors remain hidden on the blind spot of social commentary. It is at micro-economic level where factors such as white supremacy, foolishness and leadership ineptitude are conspicuously glaring.

European descendants in Africa are radically opposed to follow African leadership. Their conviction to white supremacy presumptions compel them to emigrate rather that submitting to African majority rule. They cannot allow affirmative action to compromise their integrity. Their racist ideological obsession will not let them accept supervision and management by a ‘kaffir’.

It is without fear of contradiction to pronounce that emigration of these people does not translate to brain drain as most of them are merely highly glorified clerks. They have held technical positions for a long time but do not necessary possess technical skills. The real technical skills claimed by emigrants and real work experience are held by some unrecognized African worker on the shop-floor. These white supremacists have not been working. They have been maintaining the parasitic relationship with African labour. The statistics of failed emigration or return from overseas voyage confirm inability to perform real work.

Foolishness is highly prevalent among Africans holding certificates and degrees. The reason for this is that African governments expanded colonial education instead of reviewing it. Post colonial education system in Africa is still promoting white supremacy thus failing to remove foolishness from an African child. Foolishness is being commonly defined as a lack of capacity to consider facts, analyze information and make a proper judgment. This foolishness manifests itself through a value system of extreme love for money, mercenary mentality, overindulgence on entertainment and extreme selfishness.

African professionals leave their countries with the illusion that they will make it big financially without considering the cost of living in the host country. This result in failure to escape the rat race, retarding their technical competency growth in the process and kills any potential to leave a legacy. It is silly for a doctor from Africa to move to be a waiter in some European village in name of making more money. This has great devastation on African taxpayers’ education and training investment made on these intellectually underdeveloped professionals.

Brain drain trends are further driven by poor workplace leadership. Good leadership seeks success from the environment rather from the blood of their followers. The majority of workplace leaders are incompetent but workplace culture allows them to abuse their positions to shift blame to their subordinate. Management decision, process of decision making and communication of decision are biggest destroyers of morale in the workplace.

Improvement of productivity is a function of management not workers. Workplace productivity is not about working harder but rather is about working smarter. The design of work environment, allocation of resources and choice of technology are at the core of process that improves workplace productivity. The work environment in Africa is very harsh, job security is low, proper working tools are not available and working hours are long yet remuneration is low. It results in low quality of life for the worker while the capitalist sucks their blood dry.

Africa needs diverse set of skills to propel highly required for economic and social development. Workplace leaders need to shape up, socialisation processes like education need to be Africanised, raise national consciousness and adopt collective approach to ownership of means of production whereas white supremacy must be totally crushed to realise total emancipation.

By Sbusiso Xaba

This morning, I got up early and, because the kitchen was devoid of food, I forewent my usual breakfast conversations with Mirna, the wonderful El Salvadorean woman that cleans our house, for a meal at Dewick.  I had forgotten the best part about  dining halls – running into friends and acquaintances, and having awesome spontaneous conversations about everything and nothing at all.

In Dewick I ran into an old acquaintance that I had met during International Orientation way back when.  Let’s call him call “C”.  C is an engineer from a tiny Eastern European country that few people have heard of, and even fewer can find on a map.  C and I have some mutual friends, so we eat together on occasion, say hi when we see each other on campus, and have those adorable “Hi-how-are-you?-Great!-you?-See-you-around” chats that tend to be the norm when you’re rushing from class to class.

But today, a chance encounter and some free time led to one of the most genuine, comfortable, and deep conversations I’ve had all year.  We talked about everything from engineering vs. liberal arts, to my adolescent desire to be a blue-eyed Asian, to the socioeconomic situation in his country.  Those bits of the conversation, when he told me of his country were probably my favorite.

I mean, I’ve studied urban decay, read of the brain drain in developing countries, heard bits and pieces of the fall of the USSR, but to hear it all coming from the mouth of one who lived it?  That was beyond amazing.

“We didn’t even have toothpaste,” he said of the country under communism.  “Everyone saw the West and the U.S. as paradise, and people who went there…were the luckiest people on the world.”  He paused, before continuing “I’m glad that I don’t remember those years.”

—

Colleges always tout their diversity and the number and/or percentage of international students, and to be honest, I have always felt a little jaded reading those numbers.  Maybe it’s because I hate math, but those statistics just seem so… impersonal.  So what if College X has 30% or 5% minorities?  So what if College Y only has 5 international students and College Z has 530? These numbers tell you nothing about the people behind them.  They tell you nothing of the experiences and complexities of each individual.

Because that’s what’s most impressive and awe-inspiring about Tufts, and diversity at Tufts, I think.  Yes, we have a lot of international students, and minority students, and students of all different backgrounds.  Yes, each entering class is well-rounded.  But more importantly, and more interestingly, are the wealth of experiences and the diversity that you’ll find in each individual.

And peeling back all the layers and discovering the stories behind each number is something that could keep you occupied all four years.

Indonesia memiliki sumber daya manusia yang lebih dari cukup untuk menjadi bangsa yang unggul dan terpandang. Orang-orang dengan kualitas otak prima nomor wahid, talenta kelas dunia dan imaji mereka untuk menjadi Indonesia yang maju dan modern. Sayangnya kita belum punya pemerintah yang peduli terhadap SDM unggul tersebut. Akibatnya, dari hampir 7 juta orang jenius dan berbakat hebat di Indonesia 99.5 % hanya menjadi orang biasa di negeri sendiri. Sisanya adalah para jenius yang berhasil moncer di pentas dunia dan mengabdikan kecerdasannya di negeri asing. Hal ini sangat berbeda dengan Cina dan India.

India tak putus-putusnya mencetak ilmuwan hingga ahli keuangan kelas dunia agar bisa meraih posisi penting di dunia khususnya Amerika dan Eropa. Kini mereka telah berhasil memindahkan Silicon Valley, jantung industri digital Amerika ke Bangalore, India.
Lihatlah Cina, mereka juga tak henti-hentinya mengirim ratusan ribu pelajar berbakatnya untuk belajar di pusat riset dan pendidikan terbaik di dunia. Target mereka adalah mencetak PhD lebih banyak dari Amerika dan Eropa dan menguasai pasar ilmuwan dunia.

Lantas bagaimana dengan Indonesia tercinta?

Sesungguhnya, ketidakpedulian pemerintah Indonesia terhadap para jenius merupakan pertanda gelap dan suramnya masa depan Indonesia. Lihatlah perlakuan mereka terhadap BJ Habibie, hampir semua ekonom Indonesia mengecam dan mencaci maki program HITECH dan STAID nya Habibie karena di anggap pemborosan. BPIS dan PT DI pun di acak-acak. Para ekonom Indonesia yang kebanyakan bermental pedagang lebih memilih program instan yang langsung bisa di lihat hasilnya.
Akibatnya, kini Indonesia sangat tertinggal jauh dari Malaysia, Thailand dan Singapura. Mereka sudah meninggalkan landasan dan berpacu menjadi negara maju berbasis IPTEK, sementara Indonesia masih jauh  tertinggal di landasan.
Namun demikian, ketidakpedulian pemerintah Indonesia terhadap para jenius tak menyurutkan semangat nasionalisme mereka untuk tetap berkiprah dan berkarya di panggung dunia dan membawa nama harum Indonesia. Lihatlah kiprah jenius Indonesia di negeri asing seperti Nelson Tansu, Muhammad Arif Budiman, Nico Tjandra, Teruna Jaya, Khoirul Anwar, Johny Setiawan, dkk. Lewat bakat, dan kejeniusan mereka, Indonesia masih di kenal di panggung dunia. Lewat karya-karya para jenius yang spektakuler tersebut, Indonesia masih di kenal sebagai gudangnya ilmuwan kaliber dunia.

Sa totoo lang, mas na-appreciate pa ang kagalingan at kahusayan ng mga Pinoy sa ibang bansa. Hindi natin masisisi ang mga Pinoy kung magsipag-alisan sa Pinas dahil sa kahirapan. Gusto rin nating mamuhay ng marangal at maginhawa, ang bilang sukli ay kinailangan nating iiwan pansamantala ang ating mga mahal sa buhay sa Pinas.

Kung hindi lang sana kurakot ang ating gobyerno, kaya sanang pantayan ng ating bansa ang pa-sweldo ng ibang bansa. Halimbawa na lang ay ang pagiging isang kasambahay – walang kasambahay sa Pinas ang sumusweldo ng P15,000 o mahigit. Kahit “white-collar” job nga sa atin ay mahirap makakuha ng P15,000 na sahod kada buwan. Kaya tuloy ninanais na lang ng ating mga kababayang propesyonal na mamasukan bilang kasambahay o sikyu o kung anong marangal na trabaho sa ibang bansa para lang maitaguyod sa kahirapan ang kani-kanilang mga pamilya.

Kaya tuloy ang ating mga skilled workers ay nagsipag-alisan na sa ating bansa. Libo-libong mga Pinoy ang lumilipad patungong ibang bansa. Nagkakaroon ng “brain drain” ang ating bayan. Hindi na nakikinabang ang Pinas sa ating kagalingan, kahusayan at katalinohan. Ang hangad lang naman ng gobyerno natin ay ang billion-dollar remittances natin. The more money we send home, the more money our government will corrupt!

Dahil sa korupsyon, kokonti na lang ang natitirang pondo para sa mga infrastructure projects, kaya sub-standard ang mga ito. At dahil kokonti ang pondo, pati pasweldo sa mga workers ay below minimum na rin. At dahil below minimum na ang pasweldo, karamihan sa mga construction workers nangungurakot na rin. Maraming mga construction materials ang itinago nila at ibinenta para lang magkapera. Ito ang sinasabi na “vicious cycle”. Corruption begets corruption! Corruption is the root of poverty; and poverty breeds corruption!

May pag-asa pa ba ang ating bayang sinilangan? Darating kaya ang panahon na aahon tayo sa kahirapan at tayong mga Pinoy na naman ang mag-hire ng mga Intsik o Hapon o Amerikano para magtrabaho sa ating mga construction at magiging kasambahay? Or, are we doomed to be poor and susceptible to abuses as “modern slaves”?

Only history can tell.

But that's okay, as long as he was raised and educated in New Zealand. Right?

I was halfway through a one-hour presentation about Generation Y and globalisation at an event in Napier last week, when an audience member stood up to ask a question. “What I want to know,” she began, “is why, whenever I go to hospital, there seem to be so many Asians and South African doctors and nurses there. Our people can’t find jobs, so why are those people getting them?” Ordinarily, I would have considered that question to be plainly xenophobic (and rather trite too; we’ve heard it far too many times before). But it seemed clear that she was speaking from a position of sheer ignorance rather than one of malice. Is there a difference? Perhaps I’m being a little too generous, but I think there is.

The woman was in her 60s. She lives in Tauranga, a city in which 88 percent of the population is European, and 16 percent is Maori. What’s more, the percentage of Asians in Tauranga is only a third of the national average, while the Pacific population is a quarter of the national average. Earlier this year, when I spoke at a leadership event for high school students in Tauranga, I was astonished at the extent to which the city’s homogenous ethnic identity had affected its young people’s worldviews, even though they are part of Gen Y’s ‘global’ youth culture (or so we tell ourselves). It’s easy for those of us who live in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch to assume that our outlook on culture and identity is reflected in the provinces. That’s not always the case.

I began by reminding the woman that New Zealand is desperately short of qualified doctors and nurses, and that the reception given to new migrants who are trained as health practitioners is based on the need to staff our hospitals, not tick cultural boxes. Of course, there are a range of other factors involved. We’re living in a global society. One million New Zealanders are living and working overseas. The flipside is that we’re benefiting from an injection of skills and talent from migrants. The “immigrants taking our jobs” line is tired and old, and given that she hails from the Tauranga electorate, it’s not difficult to guess which politician she may have inherited that sentiment from. Even so, new figures suggest that without the current levels of immigration, our economy would take a major hit: GDP would plummet by 11.3 percent. It’s encouraging that immigration minister Jonathan Coleman has acknowledged this.

It’s pointless to argue that locals should be given jobs which are already filled by migrants who are more competent and skilled than local candidates. (After all, that’s the only conceivable reason that they managed to secure those jobs in the first place.) Rather, let’s turn our attention to the real debate: how do we stimulate business growth and entrepreneurship to increase demand for labour in areas where there is currently excess labour supply? That’s a question I put to the delegates at this conference. The woman who asked the curly question had prefaced that question with “Now, I don’t expect you to answer this, but…”, which begs another question: why did she bother to ask it? But I’m glad she did. It’s better for us to have these conversations sooner rather than later. If not, we’re likely to end up with more headlines like this one from the Sunday Star-Times in January: “Shortage of young, white, male doctors”. Go figure.