<p>On remittances:</p>
<p>It is not unusual to hear about income being sent home by, say, US immigrants. However, the product of their labor and the side effects of their intellectual capital, sometimes called positive spillover, do not occur in the home country.  As such, they are not as beneficial to the <strong>home</strong> country as some counterfactual world where an equally profitable job existed at home. The immigrants are then beneficial to the <strong>host</strong> country.  The remittances still benefit the home country, however, and are particularly important when no employment is available at home.</p>
<p>On unemployment:</p>
<p>Broadly, immigration does not appear to have much of an impact on the unemployment in the <strong>host</strong> country. Or at least, something happens which masks that effect and makes it tremendously difficult to measure.  There has been a lot of controversy on this study but it helps highlight a lot of the issues if you take the chain of papers and responses seriously: <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents</a></p>
<p>On the type of people immigrating:</p>
<p>&quot;Are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something.&quot;  This isn't really the type of question economists answer. Everyone is money-hungry and equally self-interested, by default, and <em>that is fine</em>.  This helps (in some ways) avoid stereotyping immigrants. You may want to open another question about the types of people who like to immigrate.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-25T07:53:22.857Z
Thanks! 1) Re 'As such, they are not as beneficial as some counterfactual world where an equally profitable job existed at home', is it as beneficial to the home country in the current world where an equally profitable job does not exist in home country? 2) By the way, does the idea of third world vs first world mean anything here? Like for example, there's some from a third world country going abroad to a first world country as opposed to first world to another first world
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-25T08:00:23.083Z
Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something. To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T01:02:12.837Z
Added bounty btw
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T16:08:33.980Z
oh that is so weird i did not notice the edit until just now. you could've mentioned
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-12T21:34:23.077Z
Anyway, thanks for edit. Is immigration necessarily harmful to the home country? Is third world/first world relevant here? P.S. I weirdly cannot chat just because I'm suspended on maths se.
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-12T08:14:44.580Z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6azSHCHwPc

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying it may cause (however small) less unemployment for menial jobs but not so much for non-menial jobs?
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-12T14:49:41.230Z
The benefit I was thinking of is from increased consumption from foreign remittances.  If you go overseas and mail back goods or foreign currency to relatives, they can import their goods of interest and consume them.   It's possible (with a really really high real wage differential) that a job in a foreign country could benefit the home country more than the foreign one in terms of consumption.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-12T18:40:52.653Z
Thanks RegressForward though the topic of foreign remittances is actually just part of my post. My other topic is that of unemployment. I was thinking that if for example I work abroad instead of working in my home country which say is third world, I was thinking that whatever job I would have had would be taken by someone else (Alice) who would have otherwise been employed in a less-desirable job. In turn, such less-desirable job not taken by Alice is taken by Bob who say would have been otherwise unemployed.
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-12T18:42:33.437Z
Is it correct then to conclude that with a bunch of people from a third world country leaving their home country, there might be at least one job taken by someone in that third world country that would have otherwise been taken by a member of said bunch?
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-12T18:43:13.157Z
Might this be relevant? http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/1815/has-the-natural-rate-of-unemployment-decreased-with-modern-travel-and-the-intern
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-13T04:07:31.763Z
It is the same as reducing the population. Let us say I have a population of 10,000 equally qualified candidates for 5,000 jobs,  Then, half of them are randomly removed from the labor pool by the plague. If there were the same number of jobs before and after the plague, then unemployment declines to zero.  This is the same if they immigrated out or caught the plague.  The key factor is that I have imagined the supply of jobs are constant, though there is likely some impact on the number of available jobs when reducing the population.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-13T10:40:34.107Z
RegressForward, I think the impact on job availability differs when there's a plague or when they immigrate :P Anyway, I think I get it now. If they immigrate, there are foreign remittances. If they die from a (the?) plague, there are no foreign remittances. So even if there is less unemployment, such benefit pales in comparison to the benefit of foreign remittances is greater?
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-13T17:02:01.487Z
This is getting unwieldly, would you like to take this into chat?
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-13T18:17:08.873Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/23743/discussion-between-bclc-and-regressforward).
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2015-05-05T03:01:42.653Z
2020-08-11T19:17:23.300Z
2020-08-11T19:17:23.300Z
RegressForward
<p>This is the brain drain vs brain gain discussion, there is a huge literature on this, e.g. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02135.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Brain Drain and Human Capital Formation in Developing Countries: Winners and Losers", Michel Beine, Fréderic Docquier and Hillel Rapoport, Economic Journal 2008</a>. A further point that is brought up is increased incentives to build human capital because of potential higher payoffs abroad. Higher individual human capital, not only of those who remain at home but also of those who return (and have built networks), has spillover effects and benefits for society as a whole. It has been argued that this is helpful for countries with huge population such as India where not everyone with high skills can leave. For smaller countries the loss of the highly skilled, especially in the medical sector, is often a substantial problem. One country (I think it was the Philippines) even temporarily stopped teaching English to nurses because of a lack of them at home due to the constant outflow because of better earnings perspectives abroad. With the financial crisis it seems many however got stuck at home because of reduced chances elsewhere.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-25T07:54:23.720Z
so the philippines was actually like not benefiting from nurses going abroad?
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-25T08:00:26.377Z
Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something. To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T01:02:17.317Z
Added bounty btw
BCLC
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-23T20:21:28.837Z
2017-08-23T20:21:28.837Z
Econstudent
<p>This question is from subjective origins but is (supposed to be) objective.</p>
<p>The context of this question arises from people in third world countries going abroad to work. Often they are seen as money-hungry people who don't 'love' their country (unless they are, say, physicists who do research abroad due to poor facilities or engineers or financiers simply looking for higher salary or something like that).</p>
<p>I was thinking that <strong>those people help their country through foreign remittances</strong>. I later additionally thought another help done is that whatever job they would have done in the country is likely ('likely' is probably the key word here) <strong>going to be replaced by someone else who would otherwise have been unemployed or underemployed</strong> would have that job which in turn likely (hooray key words) means that someone else who would otherwise have been unemployed or underemployed would have that job, etc.</p>
<ul>
<li>If the answer is no (working abroad necessarily causes less unemployment), under what kinds of situations might this be the case?</li>
<li>If the answer is no (again, working abroad necessarily causes less unemployment) due to geographical variations, you may consider third world countries.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Edited to add: Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not 'love' their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like <strong>I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something.</strong> To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-31T07:02:30.280Z
@KennyLJ 'Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something.' ?
BCLC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-01T10:44:29.740Z
@KennyLJ Ah I made a mistake because i did not put 'love' in quotations in one part. fixed. thanks then
BCLC
<labor-economics><unemployment><migration><remittance>
Does working abroad cause less unemployment? Or is it actually harmful (directly or opportunity cost)?
BCLC
# Does working abroad cause less unemployment? Or is it actually harmful (directly or opportunity cost)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-05-04)

This question is from subjective origins but is (supposed to be) objective.

The context of this question arises from people in third world countries going abroad to work. Often they are seen as money-hungry people who don't 'love' their country (unless they are, say, physicists who do research abroad due to poor facilities or engineers or financiers simply looking for higher salary or something like that).

I was thinking that **those people help their country through foreign remittances**. I later additionally thought another help done is that whatever job they would have done in the country is likely ('likely' is probably the key word here) **going to be replaced by someone else who would otherwise have been unemployed or underemployed** would have that job which in turn likely (hooray key words) means that someone else who would otherwise have been unemployed or underemployed would have that job, etc.

* If the answer is no (working abroad necessarily causes less unemployment), under what kinds of situations might this be the case?
* If the answer is no (again, working abroad necessarily causes less unemployment) due to geographical variations, you may consider third world countries.

---

Edited to add: Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not 'love' their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like **I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something.** To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.

**Tags:** labor-economics, unemployment, migration, remittance

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @KennyLJ 'Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something.' ?  
> **username_0**: @KennyLJ Ah I made a mistake because i did not put 'love' in quotations in one part. fixed. thanks then  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-05-05. Score: 6

On remittances:

It is not unusual to hear about income being sent home by, say, US immigrants. However, the product of their labor and the side effects of their intellectual capital, sometimes called positive spillover, do not occur in the home country. As such, they are not as beneficial to the **home** country as some counterfactual world where an equally profitable job existed at home. The immigrants are then beneficial to the **host** country. The remittances still benefit the home country, however, and are particularly important when no employment is available at home.

On unemployment:

Broadly, immigration does not appear to have much of an impact on the unemployment in the **host** country. Or at least, something happens which masks that effect and makes it tremendously difficult to measure. There has been a lot of controversy on this study but it helps highlight a lot of the issues if you take the chain of papers and responses seriously: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents>

On the type of people immigrating:

"Are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something." This isn't really the type of question economists answer. Everyone is money-hungry and equally self-interested, by default, and *that is fine*. This helps (in some ways) avoid stereotyping immigrants. You may want to open another question about the types of people who like to immigrate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6azSHCHwPc  I'm not sure I understand. You're saying it may cause (however small) less unemployment for menial jobs but not so much for non-menial jobs?  
> **username_1**: The benefit I was thinking of is from increased consumption from foreign remittances.  If you go overseas and mail back goods or foreign currency to relatives, they can import their goods of interest and consume them.   It's possible (with a really really high real wage differential) that a job in a foreign country could benefit the home country more than the foreign one in terms of consumption.  
> **username_0**: Thanks username_1 though the topic of foreign remittances is actually just part of my post. My other topic is that of unemployment. I was thinking that if for example I work abroad instead of working in my home country which say is third world, I was thinking that whatever job I would have had would be taken by someone else (Alice) who would have otherwise been employed in a less-desirable job. In turn, such less-desirable job not taken by Alice is taken by Bob who say would have been otherwise unemployed.  
> **username_0**: Is it correct then to conclude that with a bunch of people from a third world country leaving their home country, there might be at least one job taken by someone in that third world country that would have otherwise been taken by a member of said bunch?  
> **username_0**: Might this be relevant? http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/1815/has-the-natural-rate-of-unemployment-decreased-with-modern-travel-and-the-intern  
> **username_1**: It is the same as reducing the population. Let us say I have a population of 10,000 equally qualified candidates for 5,000 jobs,  Then, half of them are randomly removed from the labor pool by the plague. If there were the same number of jobs before and after the plague, then unemployment declines to zero.  This is the same if they immigrated out or caught the plague.  The key factor is that I have imagined the supply of jobs are constant, though there is likely some impact on the number of available jobs when reducing the population.  
> **username_0**: username_1, I think the impact on job availability differs when there's a plague or when they immigrate :P Anyway, I think I get it now. If they immigrate, there are foreign remittances. If they die from a (the?) plague, there are no foreign remittances. So even if there is less unemployment, such benefit pales in comparison to the benefit of foreign remittances is greater?  
> **username_1**: This is getting unwieldly, would you like to take this into chat?  
> **username_0**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/23743/discussion-between-username_0-and-username_1).  
> **username_0**: Thanks! 1) Re 'As such, they are not as beneficial as some counterfactual world where an equally profitable job existed at home', is it as beneficial to the home country in the current world where an equally profitable job does not exist in home country? 2) By the way, does the idea of third world vs first world mean anything here? Like for example, there's some from a third world country going abroad to a first world country as opposed to first world to another first world  
> **username_0**: Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something. To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.  
> **username_0**: Added bounty btw  
> **username_0**: oh that is so weird i did not notice the edit until just now. you could've mentioned  
> **username_0**: Anyway, thanks for edit. Is immigration necessarily harmful to the home country? Is third world/first world relevant here? P.S. I weirdly cannot chat just because I'm suspended on maths se.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-08-23. Score: 0

This is the brain drain vs brain gain discussion, there is a huge literature on this, e.g. ["Brain Drain and Human Capital Formation in Developing Countries: Winners and Losers", Michel Beine, Fréderic Docquier and Hillel Rapoport, Economic Journal 2008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02135.x). A further point that is brought up is increased incentives to build human capital because of potential higher payoffs abroad. Higher individual human capital, not only of those who remain at home but also of those who return (and have built networks), has spillover effects and benefits for society as a whole. It has been argued that this is helpful for countries with huge population such as India where not everyone with high skills can leave. For smaller countries the loss of the highly skilled, especially in the medical sector, is often a substantial problem. One country (I think it was the Philippines) even temporarily stopped teaching English to nurses because of a lack of them at home due to the constant outflow because of better earnings perspectives abroad. With the financial crisis it seems many however got stuck at home because of reduced chances elsewhere.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: so the philippines was actually like not benefiting from nurses going abroad?  
> **username_0**: Also my concern is understanding whether or not like: are the ones going abroad necessarily like money-hungry people who do not love their country or something? If you choose to work in your country, then do you necessarily 'love' your country more or 'serve' your countrypeople more than if you didn't work in your country? Of course 'love' and 'serve' are subjective, but it's like I wanna understand if somehow working abroad is like more beneficial to the individual but harmful to the country or something. To me, it seems like going abroad benefits everyone at least from 3rd to 1st world.  
> **username_0**: Added bounty btw  

---

