Few intellectually honest observers would dispute that Donald Trump's election was based in no small part on channeling white ethno-nationalist fears. More specifically, the United States is expected to become a non-white majority country mid-century. Estimates vary, but it's estimated to happen possibly in 2044 at the earliest. Trump's unapologetically racist tirades and policies against Mexicans, Muslims and other non-white and/or non-Christian people appeal to precisely this white ethno-nationalist base fearful of non-white majority America.

A recent New York Times op-ed puts it in simpler terms: Trump wants to Make America White Again, or turn back the clock to an earlier time when the colored people knew their (subordinate) place in (white-dominated) American society. You know, the good ol' days for the good ol' boys:

The White House is assertively working to make America white again, and Democrats are too afraid to speak that truth. The aggressive pace of deportations of immigrants of color, the elimination of the DACA program protecting immigrant children and the proposals propounded by the anti-immigration voices in the administration will all have the undeniable effect of slowing the rapid racial diversification of the United States population.

But how much can Trump really change demographic forces in the making for decades upon decades? The answer is the economist's "only on the margin." The Washington Post's analysis is similar to most in that it's like trying to hold back a waterfall. Or, in numerical terms, five measly years at most. Factor in the lowered annual intake if Trump and the restrictionists got their way:

The Post analyzed a low-end and high-end estimate for cuts to legal immigration under the Trump plan. The low-end estimate, provided by NumbersUSA, a group that favors limiting immigration, suggests that about 300,000 fewer immigrants will be admitted legally on an annual basis. A high-end estimate from the Cato Institute, which favors immigration, suggests that as many as 500,000 fewer immigrants would be admitted. Cato bases its number, in part, on assumptions that more family visa categories will be cut.

It doesn't sound like much of a delay, and it has more to do with domestic demographic trends (births/deaths among whites/non-white citizens) than it does with the in-migration of non-whites.

Trump should dress in more appropriate garb...but we can do more sensible things.

(UPDATE: A new poll finds Norwegians have the lowest opinion of American leadership of any country surveyed, to no one’s real surprise.) I am utterly appalled, but not surprised, by American President Donald Trump's reported characterization of a number of developing nations as "shit--hole countries." In his rhetoric, Trump can be argued to subscribe to a global racial hierarchy which goes roughly like this:

White American > White European > White Australian/New Zealander > Japanese > Other East Asian > Southeast Asian > South Asian > South American > Caribbean > African

Variations on this kind of racist thinking have a long tradition, basing human capabilities on skin color, geography, or some other questionable criteria. While reducing immigration from non-white nations has been a central plank to Trumpism--AKA "terrorists," "drug dealers," "rapists," and "killers," his claimed desire to re-prioritize European migration is interesting. For a long time in its history, the United States of course gave preference to white European settlers. Aside from the demographics of aging European countries not being ideal for sending migrants, the question comes to mind as to whether today's United States can attract these more "desirable" people. Trump made the comparison himself when speaking about how people from Norway--whose leader recently visited the US--would make a far better source country for migrants to America.

The answer is a clear no. Statistically speaking, there are next to no reasons as to why a Norwegian national would desire to become an American national. Let's look at the numbers:

1. Norway has the highest human development index (HDI) rating in the entire world, the United States rather less so. The United States barely makes the top 10. The HDI is a useful indicator of human progress insofar as it not only considers economic measures--production per capita--but also those for health and education. I can go on and on about "American health" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). The United States has the fattest people among OECD nations and, on a related note, is remarkable in declining among the aforesaid nations in terms of comparative life expectancy. In other words, its momentum is sinking rather than rising in HDI judging by the health component. As for education, do you really have to ask? Of course Norwegian students outdo American ones in science, reading and mathematics.

2. Norway is so wealthy that its government has earmarked over $190,000 to each citizen. By contrast, the United States saddles each of its citizens with over $63,000 in debt (and rising). The United States is said to be a country rich in natural resources as well as human capital. For any number of reasons, however, the country has never had a sovereign wealth fund accumulating state revenues from resource extraction activities. As it so happens, Norway has one of the world's largest--which is exceptional for a country with such a small population. If you allocate holdings of the Government Pension Fund (~USD1 trillion) to its ultimate beneficiaries, each Norwegian citizen (~5.2 million), then each Norwegian has over $190,000 to bank on.

The United States is a rather more sobering story. Its national debt has climbed above $20.5 trillion and is set to rise much more quickly in the near future due to various health and pension obligations which have been largely unplanned for (unlike, say, by Norway). Distributed to each citizen, that's $63,000 so far. So, someone with a Trump-like worldview trading Norwegian for American citizenship instantly loses $253,000. What a deal.

3. The idea that greater inequality is tolerated in the United States because opportunities there are greater has long since been debunked. Economic mobility in Scandinavian countries like Norway is much greater than in the United States, where your financial condition is more significantly correlated to that of your parents. This finding is repeatedly shown in study after study; see Pew for a recent one.

So, here's the question for Trump since he's the one who brought up Norway in the first place: What reasons are there for Norwegians to move to what appears to be the "shit--hole" country here by way of comparison? The answer is very few, and that's actually what's happening. Instead of assuming how great the United States is and how others would die for the opportunity to become part of it, Trump and his ilk should see that it's really pathetic relative to other [OECD] countries in its peer group by most objective standards of human well-being.

If these scenes will just keep replaying, shouldn't you leave for good?

The recent hurricanes which leveled vast swathes of the Caribbean islands, Irma and Maria, have raised concerns among residents about how viable it remains to live there. Certainly, others like their big neighbor to the North aren't helping matters. Climate deniers like Trump likely make their future bleaker. Saying global warming is a hoax means denying sea levels are rising and denying warmer temperatures means more water vapor is being stored--both of which make storms even more damaging.

So, not only have many of these countries and territories suffered tremendous damage, but worse is still to common thanks in no small part to global inaction on climate change. What to do? With limited economic prospects at home, Caribbean residents are thinking of the inevitable in leaving for good. What's the point in rebuilding when nearly everything is wiped out almost every other year?
To be sure, large diaspora communities abroad can help facilitate out-migration:

Like many people in the Caribbean, Roman and her family have a relatively easy way out. The Caribbean diaspora is vast and deeply connected. About as many Caribbean natives live in North America or Europe as in the islands; immigrants from the region make up 20 percent of the population in greater Miami and 7 percent of New York City. Half of Caribbean immigrants around the world send remittances to support relatives back home, and 70 percent belong to organizations on their islands, according to a World Bank study. For Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens, the back and forth is even more fluid.

The details may vary somewhat, but the overall picture is one of economic stagnation that resulted in large-scale departures prior to the hurricanes. That is, there's increasingly less and less left behind:

Puerto Rico’s government is cash-strapped and grappling with an impossible-to-pay-off seventy-four-billion-dollar debt; the island’s poverty rate is over forty per cent; and the number of people relocating to the mainland United States has been rising for a decade. Against this backdrop, many of Puerto Rico’s mountain people live an existence not unlike the people of Appalachia, with a rural life style and economic level somewhere between working poor and lower middle class. Like their mainland counterparts, they cling to a tenuous Second World status. Most of them own cars, though it is rare to see a new one. Their homes are small, flat-roofed, cinderblock structures with grillwork on the windows and little fences around the yards—their owners are house-proud, and paint these homes in a variety of bright colors. Many also keep chickens, and some have horses.

You never want to leave the place called home for no good reason, but mankind's collective inability to confront or even acknowledge in the case of Trump's USA) climate change makes staying a less rational decision than packing up for good among many residents of the Caribbean islands.

Trump voters ain't gonna fix this destruction.

There's an insightful op-ed in the Washington Post on why Houston's rebuilding is well off-track. Simply put, there are not enough construction workers at the current time. With Trump's various immigration-unfriendly policies in progress, things aren't going to improve anytime soon. The net result is that instead of aiding the reconstruction of the United States' fourth-largest city, Trump is putting it off indefinitely.

Actually, there's plenty of capital sitting on the sidelines but not enough labor to get the construction work going. This is one industry where automation won't be of much help for the foreseeable future:

Even before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, 69 percent of Texas contractors had trouble filling jobs. Now, it’s estimated that 200,000 Houston homes will require work or complete reconstruction. Who will build these houses? What about the commercial infrastructure and public schools, highways and bridges that also sustained so much damage?

We face an infrastructure deficit in this country totaling $2 trillion over 10 years. The storms have added tens of billions to this figure. Lawmakers focus on who’s going to pay for all of this, but they also must think about who’s going to build it [my emphasis].

This problem is one that plagues the whole nation, and it’s effectively “corked” our economy. We’re stymied. We’re stifled. Right now, the largest construction companies in America are turning away hundreds of millions of dollars in work every quarter because they don’t have enough bodies on their crews. The National Association of Homebuilders reports that 77 percent of U.S. builders can’t find enough people for their framing teams. Sixty-one percent can’t find enough drywall installation workers. The number of construction jobs available in the United States rose in June, and it increased again in July.

We go back to the same old problem: instead of ramping up immigration to help (re-)build America, the Trumpian set is busy doing the opposite:

One way to do that is to completely overhaul our broken immigration system. The last comprehensive reform was in 1986. Our visa system fails to match supply with demand. Congress must rebalance the numbers and even consider increasing legal immigration so we can attract all the workers we need — high skill, low skill and no skill. As Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said in a recent op-ed, we can’t forget that the ability to work hard sometimes is the only skill a job requires.

The problem is that the likes of Trump and his supporters have the opposite perception: coloreds and other foreigners are "stealing" their jobs. The honest answer is, again, that gringos simply don't want to do construction work in sufficient numbers [1, 2]--otherwise you wouldn't have this problem to begin with. Ultimately, I do believe that Trump is setting the stage for lower potential US economic growth through these racist/protectionist measures.

Just wait and see as Houston remains literally underwater.

Is Donald Trump's America so hateful of immigrants that it'd rather slow Houston's reconstruction significantly?

Being human after all, we have certain cravings that are personally destructive: nicotine cravings, sugar cravings, and so on. For several members of the American Trump administration--and those who voted for this affront to humanity--they have a different sort of craving that is rather worse in being societally destructive. That's right, their one true addiction is deporting people who are "different" from them culturally, ethnically or religiously. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, etc.

In an earlier post I discussed the potential consequences of ramping up deportations from the US just as Houston lies devastated by Hurricane Harvey. Being a Trump voter-rich state, Texas has unfortunately been at the forefront of sending those from other countries packing:

Under President Trump, authorities in Texas have been bearing down on illegal immigrants. Until a judge blocked the measure last week, they threatened to enact a new state law that would outlaw sanctuary cities. Texas also has been leading a group of 10 states demanding that Trump end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which granted reprieves from deportation to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as minors.

The last time a disaster of this magnitude hit the Gulf of Mexico area, then-President George W. Bush silently rolled back strict deportation to help reconstruct New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Indeed, Hurricane Harvey may have made immigrants more vulnerable by literally bringing them out in the open:

It is a harsher landscape for those in the country illegally than it was 12 years ago, when the Gulf Coast faced the similar-size task of cleaning up from Hurricane Katrina. Eight days after that storm made landfall, President George W. Bush bowed to pressure from construction firms and relaxed worker ID rules. By some estimates, that allowed more than a quarter of all government-paid recovery jobs to go to illegal immigrants [my emphasis]...

But 10 days after Harvey struck Texas with record-setting rains and caused unprecedented flooding, the Trump administration has made no similar proclamation. Worse, immigrant rights groups say, federal authorities have sent conflicting signals about whether they might start simply detaining and deporting those flushed out into the open by the storm.

Builders, unlike certain elected officials, know what really needs to be accomplished in order to meet the labor requirements in rebuilding Houston. Most certainly it isn't ramping up deportations:

Leaders in the construction industry have begun sounding alarms that there will not be enough American-born workers to rebuild as quickly as needed. “If they would relax the rules, honestly, that would be great, we could use it,” said Jeffrey Nielsen, executive vice president of the Houston Contractors Association, whose members include the city’s largest firms that build roads, bridges and other public works.

Nielsen said that even before Harvey hit, almost every member of the association was grappling with a shortage of workers. With a crushing list of jobs now growing by the day, thousands need to be hired — and fast. Nielsen said he and other construction industry officials were told at a weekend briefing that roughly 30 percent of all roads in and around Houston will remain impassable without some construction work.

The city's reliance on undocumented workers is substantial if left unsaid. As the saying goes, there are literally few gringos (white natives) willing to do the work:

“The truth is, there are not a lot of people jumping up and down to do civil construction work in Texas. It’s hot, and these jobs are pouring concrete or, worse, hot asphalt,” Nielsen said. “That’s the reality of it, and we need more people than ever.”

There are plenty in and around Houston who might consider taking on the work, which can pay $20 an hour or more, if ID requirements were relaxed, construction industry officials say.

The Houston metropolitan area has the third-largest illegal immigrant population in the country, about 575,000 people, according to a Pew Research Center report this year. Those workers already make up roughly a quarter of all construction laborers citywide, according to the study. Some estimate it could be closer to half [my emphasis].

But as the federal government this week is expected to begin signing massive contracts for debris removal, roofing work and other emergency efforts, none of Houston’s unauthorized immigrant population could pass worker verification guidelines required of federal contractors.

Trump-style bigotry certainly raises several ethical issues. However, as this storm illustrates, racism doesn't make much economic sense either while you're trying to rebuild an American megacity. Somehow, I doubt there are enough Breitbart readers out there [representative headline: Satanic illegals kill US teen!] willing to do the hard work that needs to be done.

Who'll rebuild Houston? With an immigration crackdown underway, it's a pretty big question.

First off, I wish to extend my sympathy to the residents of the great American city of Houston. While the United States' fourth-largest city is mostly imagined to be an oil town, the truth is that it's been busy diversifying away from energy. Hence, even if oil prices are depressed, the city hasn't just muddled through in wait for another oil boom. Instead, it's broadened its economic based to become less reliant on oil and gas.

When Hurricane Harvey runs its course--as it eventually will--the city will be in some need of rebuilding. As it's still ongoing, the ultimate amount of the damage cannot be known. That said, there will be a huge need for construction workers and others in the building trade. Unfortunately, this being the first year of the Trump administration, the storm is occurring amidst a large crackdown on immigrants. Immigrants making up a large stock of would-be construction workers Stateside, this situation poses a quandary: Who exactly will rebuild Houston?

Houston will require a surge of employment—tens of thousands of people. It will have to find places for them to live, since so much of the housing stock is damaged. And it will likely have to pay them above-market wages, because it will need to lure them away from existing jobs.

And given the Trump administration’s hostility to Latinos and desire to ramp up deportations, it’s unlikely that what worked in previous disasters will work again. Back in 2007, the Washington Post reported on a Tulane and University of California, Berkeley, study that found some 100,000 Hispanic workers thronged into the Gulf Coast region in the wake of Katrina, many of them undocumented. Houston will need a similar migration for it to recover. In 2017, from where will those workers come?

Houston, we've got a problem of not having enough folks willing and able to help rebuild the city (i.e., immigrants). To make matters worse, the state of Texas has just implemented legislation making cities like Houston more responsible for deporting undocumented workers:

But the Texas labor market is tight, and incentives will be needed -- usually in the form of higher wages -- to pull in engineers, tradesman and laborers from around the region. The Federal Reserve district banks in Dallas, Atlanta and St. Louis already have reported hiring difficulties.

Gathering manpower could be further complicated by a newly passed Texas law requiring cities to be more aggressive in helping deport undocumented people. “If Houston is going to be rebuilt in a reasonable amount of time, it will be rebuilt with the contributions of undocumented immigrant workers,” said Mark Jones, a political-science professor at Rice University in Houston. “If undocumented immigrants are afraid or unwilling to come to Houston because of fears of deportation, that’s going to delay the recovery, as well as make it far more expensive.”

Let's just say the Republican-dominated state government and Trump--eager to show how he's supporting the effort to get Houston back on its feet--will have facing a dilemma in fairly short order. Will they continue to "act tough" on immigrants, or will they come up with some sort of kludge to allow undocumented workers to help in the city's repairs?  Ever a pragmatist, I'd expect to see more of the latter than you'd expect from the political rhetoric.

Where to head after Trump's Hicksville, USA invades Silicon Valley.

Nearly everyone knows that California has leaned more Democratic in recent times, causing widespread bafflement there about Donald Trump's presidential election victory insofar as his opponent, Hillary Clinton, won the state by more than 4.2 million votes. Unsurprisingly, there is a renewed call for California to secede from the union. Not only is it fundamentally misaligned with Trump's misanthropic, misogynistic, and xenophobic vision, but it also is a net contributor to the finances of the United States of America. Hence the proposed referendum for California exit:

The arguments for Calexit are pretty simple: The state is drifting ever-further away from the rest of the country in cultural attitudes and public policies, especially with respect to immigration and the environment. California’s size and wealth (its GDP is similar to that of France) make it the one state that might make a go of it alone. It is also a “donor state” when it comes to the relationship of federal taxes collected from Californians to the federal spending conducted there; one recent analysis showed California ranking 46th among the states in relative dependence on Washington.

But it’s clear the main reason for sudden interest in Calexit is Donald J. Trump, and the possibility a federal Republican regime under his direction would preempt California preferences on a wide range of issues. Even though Governor Jerry Brown and other statewide Democratic elected officials have kept their distance from Calexit, the saber-rattling they have conducted about the state’s willingness to fight Trump and the GOP in court has undoubtedly fed the Calexit sentiment. The latest Trump provocation, threatening sanctuary cities with the cancellation of all federal funds, is being perceived by both his friends and enemies as mainly aimed at the Golden State.

To be blunt, it is unlikely that such a referendum will be held, let alone it succeeding on technical grounds. Hence, technology companies that are commercially and culturally influential have been fleet-footed in looking for alternatives in the expectation that federal policies inimical to their interests are likely to be implemented in the near future such as restricting visas for foreign workers strong in science, technology, engineering and mathematics [STEM]. What's a tech hub that's relatively close to Silicon Valley in a country more civilized than Trump's America?

Head for Vancouver, Canada my tech friend:

Drawing on links with nearby Seattle, and San Francisco further south, a tech boom in Canada’s third-largest city has pulled in tens of thousands of skilled workers and start-up entrepreneurs in recent years, sparking a fierce fight for the limited supply of office space. Now the commercial centre of Canada’s most westerly province of British Columbia is braced for a fresh influx of talent — this one driven by the shifting immigration policies of the Trump administration in Washington. A month after Donald Trump entered the White House, the US tech sector is still trying to figure out how to adapt to the sweeping immigration reform promised by the new president.

The movement has begun as Silicon Valley hedge their bets against Trump's Fortress America:

Gregor Robertson, Vancouver mayor, says that inquiries from US tech companies have risen sharply in recent months, putting further pressures on office spaces in areas such as Gastown. “We’re bracing for that to now grow even faster, to see more people come north,” says Mr Robertson, who expects tech sector job growth in the city to accelerate from 6 per cent to 10 per cent in the next few years.

 The industry currently employs 75,000 people in Vancouver. “It’s really a reaction to the level of uncertainty,” says Mike Tippett, a Vancouver-based entrepreneur. He believes a Canadian presence can be part of a “continuity strategy” for ambitious young US software groups. “They want a back-up plan that can be kicked into gear very quickly,” he adds.  

Think of Vancouver real-estate as a hedge against Trumpian political risk and you wouldn't go far wrong as far as most of Silicon Valley is concerned. (Except for Trump apologist Peter Thiel perhaps.)

To generate growth, the US needs more rather than less people from abroad. The math is simple.

Amidst the barely concealed xenophobia of Trump's presidential campaign, something is becoming more evident the nearer he approaches the Oval Office: His economic promises go against what's been found possible in terms of generating growth relative to employment. To begin, witness another of his "clash of civilizations," "us against them" type remarks after the recent Berlin attacks:

President-elect Donald Trump characterized the gruesome truck attack on a Christmas market in Berlin as part of a systematic campaign by Muslim extremists against Christians, fueling speculation that he views the war on terrorism as a clash of civilizations and not a conflict against extremists. Trump’s late-Monday statement noted that the 12 people killed and 50 wounded were “innocent civilians.” But rather than identifying them as German citizens and tourists, he cast the attack in unusually religious terms.

“ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad,” Trump said. “These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.”

I though this commentary from MarketWatch's Rex Nutting particularly useful with regard to accepting more migrants, wherever they may come from. With worker productivity slowing instead of speeding up being the trend of the past few decades, the US economy will need to hire more workers it doesn't currently have to achieve a sustained growth increase. That is, it needs more people--make that a lot more people--from abroad. Suffice to say that the lofty goals Trump sets cannot be achieved lest the United States' labor situation changes fairly significantly in the near future (i.e., over his term):

There are only two ways to get the economy to move faster over a sustained period: Hire more workers, or make the workers we have more productive. Those two factors — working harder and working smarter — determine the economy’s potential growth rate, or its speed limit. Potential growth is the sustainable level of output that the economy can supply, and right now it’s below 2%.

Here’s the economic equation: Potential growth = labor-force growth + productivity growth.

With outsized worker productivity gains being unlikely, then, the only real way is to increase the number of workers to achieve these growth targets. With a diminishing native workforce, the US will need to look abroad for workers:

Unless we can magically get productivity to improve at the fastest rates in the past 50 years, the only way to get to the gross domestic product to grow at 3% on a sustainable basis would be to hire 33 million workers over the next 10 years.

The problem? With the working-age population barely growing, the supply of qualified and willing Americans to hire would quickly run out, which means we’d need to open up the borders and let more immigrants in. In 2020, for instance, the working-age population is expected to grow by about 600,000, according to the Census Bureau. But to grow GDP at 3%, the economy would need 2.8 million more workers that year, even if productivity rebounds modestly, as assumed by the Congressional Budget Office in its projections about potential growth.

Maybe the incoming wall-building, Islam-baiting US president would do well to reconsider his viewpoints. As it stands, his numbers here--like most everywhere else--do not add up.

UPDATE 1: Yes, Q3 growth in the US was just revised upwards to 3.5%, but that hardly qualifies as "sustained" after a number of lackluster quarters. Plus, you have to figure exactly what the unpredictable Trump will do once he gets the keys to the Oval Office.

UPDATE 2: Here's more on how conventional economists see labor productivity growth constraining US growth prospects.

Americans fleeing TrumpLand are well-advised to consider splendidly isolated and beautiful Bhutan (pop. ~760k).

While the election of Donald Trump as US president was as shocking to me as it was to the rest of the world, something else struck me as equally baffling: Americans unhappy about this turn of events--his opponent won more votes overall, remember--began crashing websites for immigration to Canada and New Zealand. I presume that they were looking for Anglophone nations to move to with generally liberal social orientations. However, consider that these countries are part of the "Five Eyes" intelligence consortium, so you'd hardly be getting away from this particular security grouping. Moreover, Canada and New Zealand have deep economic ties as well with the United States. For instance, over 60% of Canada's imports and exports involve its neighbor the United States.

So, what happens in the US does have a significant bearing on the likes of Canada and New Zealand given their significant security, economic, and political ties. No, if you really want to get away from Trump's United States and all that it stands for, I would suggest moving to countries with the following characteristics:

• negligible diplomatic ties with the United States;
• negligible economic ties with the United States; and
• progressive social policies

Actually, the United States has trade with almost every nation on earth, save perhaps North Korea. Its diplomatic representation is also pretty much universal. I also have difficulties finding countries with progressive social policies fairly isolated from the United States--not repressive regimes the US likes applying sanctions to. So it took me a long time to look around before [ahem] settling on...Bhutan. Its virtues in line with the criteria mentioned above are substantial:

[1] Diplomatic relations - There is no US embassy in Bhutan. Instead, the nearest consular outpost of the Yanks is in New Delhi, India. How isolated is Bhutan? When Secretary of State John Kerry met its prime minister in 2015--the first time a top US diplomat has ever met a Bhutanese leader--the meeting did not even happen in Bhutan itself but rather in Ahmadabad, India.

[2] Economic relations - Bhutan, according to UNCTAD statistics, is home to zero American foreign direct investment. Nada, zip, zilch. So, you won't see McDonalds every other street corner on the high street (which is an alien concept to begin with). Meanwhile, bilateral trade is next to nothing--something like $6 million a year.

[3] Progressive social policies - This is where Bhutan should score big points with the Bernie Sanders set. Instead of using using GDP as its measure of progress, the Bhutanese have famously made Gross National Happiness their yardstick:

Perhaps inspired by age-old wisdom in the ancient Kingdom of Bhutan, the fourth King concluded that GDP was neither an equitable nor a meaningful measurement for human happiness, nor should it be the primary focus for governance; and thus the philosophy of Gross National Happiness: GNH is born.

Since that time this pioneering vision of GNH has guided Bhutan’s development and policy formation. Unique among the community of nations, it is a balanced ‘middle path’ in which equitable socio-economic development is integrated with environmental conservation, cultural promotion and good governance.

How low can you go? US Treasuries do the limbo rock.

There's a depressing article in Bloomberg in which some Japanese prognosticators believe that US Treasuries are headed to where (negative yield) Japanese government bonds (JGBs) already are. First will come sub-1% yields on the 10-year note. Then will come the coup de grace perhaps of negative interest rates. While this prospect is truly horrifying for what it means for the world economy, the Japanese should know a thing or two about a bond world turned upside down where you get less in return for lending out money:

Japan’s biggest bond bulls, seasoned by two decades of economic stagnation, say the plunge in yields below zero in Tokyo foreshadows record-breaking gains for U.S. Treasuries.

Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai Asset Management says U.S. 10-year yields will drop to 1 percent as soon as this month. Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Asset Management says it’s likely in 2017, and Mizuho Asset Management predicts the figure may go even lower. The yield, a benchmark for everything from U.S. mortgages to dollar bonds in developing nations, plunged to a never-before-seen 1.318 percent last week. A surging jobs report wasn’t enough to derail the rally.

“Welcome to the world of Japanification,” said Hideo Shimomura, the 49-year-old chief fund investor at Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai in Tokyo, which oversees about $119 billion. “One percent is inevitable.”

His reason is driven by demographics:

Shimomura has 20 years of experience in bonds and has been bullish on Treasuries since 2010, watching the 10-year yield tumble 2 1/2 percentage points as Japan’s slumped all to way to zero. He’s seen the same trends in Japan play out in the U.S., with an aging population and competition from low-cost manufacturers cooling inflation. Higher welfare costs limit room for fiscal stimulus, encouraging monetary authorities to pump money into the economy, where banks park the cash in bonds instead of using it to make loans.

Japan has 26 percent of its population over the age of 65, compared with 15 percent in the U.S., based on World Bank estimates. U.S. baby boomers, born when birth rates spiked for almost two decades after World War II, began turning 65 in 2011, according to the U.S. census bureau. Those 65 and over will almost double in 2050 from 2012’s level, it estimates.

That said, there are reasons why this comparison may be superficial:

• Unlike Japan's economy which has been in and out of recession, the US is growing at a steady (if unspectacular) 2-point-something-percent rate.  Ditto for Q2 2016;
• The US fertility rate is only slightly below the replacement rate at 1.9 births per woman, whereas Japan is already depopulating and has a fertility rate of 1.4;
• Unlike Japan, the US is a country which has traditionally welcomed migrants in large numbers. If it has shortfalls in available workers or domestic demand, it can easily bring in more folks. 

Although this isn't the cheeriest argument, I believe that the US economy's rather better economic performance and prospects relative to that of depopulation- and hence deflation-addled Japan (or Western Europe for that matter) merit higher rates of interest. The wildcard which this article doesn't talk about is the spillover effect of yield-hungry global fixed income investors driving US rates down further. But, strictly speaking, the the US economy in itself isn't in nearly as dire a share as its Japanese or Western European counterparts. Another would be a President Trump who would construct Fortress America complete with a great wall keeping all furriners, but that's another horror story for another day.

Unfortunately for UK expats in the EU, they don't have much say in a process affecting them greatly.

There's an interesting article in The Economist on how the upcoming UK referendum on whether to remain or leave the EU is revealing how the country treats its expatriates. Famously a widely-traveling people, it turns out that the home nation does not have particularly high regard of its citizens living abroad. The evidence is from not giving expatriates a clear and well-organized way to cast their votes. This matters especially to expatriates working in other EU countries since, if the referendum results in leaving the grouping, there is no guarantee that they can work on anywhere near similar terms since the "Leave" camp is fervently isolationist towards everyone else--especially other Europeans. Why would the EU not return the favor?

That means protections for expats need to be secured as part of Britain’s exit negotiations. But will they be? If the country sought an arrangement similar to Norway’s, whereby it kept the trade benefits of EU membership in exchange for preserving freedom of movement, this might well be possible. But the Leave campaign is increasingly defining a pro-Brexit vote on June 23rd as a mandate for a draconian clamp-down: on June 1st Vote Leave, the official Out campaign, proposed slamming the door on all EU citizens except those with particular skills. If this happened, reciprocal restrictions would presumably apply to Britons planning to move to the continent. How it would affect those who have already done so is unclear. In the event of Brexit, European leaders are likely to try to discourage copycats by pointedly restricting the full benefits of EU citizenship to full EU citizens.

In an age when diaspora communities are regarded as resources--bringing knowledge and skills back to the home nation or sending remittances from abroad--the UK is curiously of the "out of sight, out of mind" disposition towards its own:

All this is part of a wider story: Britain tends to disregard its diaspora. The country limits its expats’ voting rights (which are withdrawn after 15 years abroad) and certain welfare payments. It freezes their pensions and makes relatively little effort to find out where they are, what they are doing or even how many of them exist.

And this in a technological age when other governments are going to new lengths to engage their emigrants. Ireland is building a giant database of its diaspora, to help nurture and woo it; New Zealand runs a social network for far-flung Kiwis. Mexico, India and China see their emigrants as soft-power warriors and try to lure high-flyers, with their international experience and connections, back home. France and Italy both have overseas parliamentary constituencies and let their expats vote in embassies...

Yet why should such Britons, many of whom have paid into the welfare state for decades before moving abroad, be treated as second-class citizens.

There are many "known unknowns" in Rumsfeld-speak for the UK itself if it leaves the EU; what more for those actually plying their trade on the continent?

You can have a national solar program...but the WTO says you should not discriminate against foreign solar panels.

With "friends" like the US and India, it seems there is no need for enemies--at least in the trade realm. A few years ago, the US complained that India was discriminating against foreign producers of solar panels by requiring that government-subsidized purchases meet a local content requirement under a national procurement program. [See case DS 456.] Late last year, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism ruled against India. Recently, an appeal by India on the matter was also rejected:

A three-member dispute settlement panel of the WTO, which was set up in 2013 after the US complained that India unduly favours local solar manufacturers, had ruled against India in August and the February 24 ruling is a reiteration by the panel after India went in appeal. India's Solar Mission offers a subsidy of up to Rs 1 crore per MW to solar developers sourcing components from local manufacturers. It also stipulates that 10% of the solar capacity target of 100,000 MW by 2022 should be built with domestically manufactured solar modules, which has led to a small part of the solar auctions being reserved for developers employing only domestic content.

India had suggested a compromise by which the domestic content requirement would not be imposed on private solar developers or made part of the auctions and would be restricted to public services such as the railways and defence. But even this failed to cut much ice with the US or the WTO.

Unhappy about this state of affairs, India has hit back at the US timing-wise with a complaint that the US was failing to meet its commitments concerning the temporary movement of natural persons to the US. That is, Indian services firms needing engineers and others to complete work Stateside have found it increasingly difficult to do so given (a) higher visa expenses and (b) fewer available visas. Indian firms being the largest users of such visas to America, recent cost increases are seen as violating Mode IV provisions:

In a statement, the WTO said that India has initiated a dispute proceeding against the US regarding measures imposing increased fees on certain applicants for L1 and H1B categories of non-immigrant temporary working visas into the US, as well as measures relating to numerical commitments for H1B visas.

"The government of India is of the view that these and comparable measures taken by the US are not in conformity with some of the provisions of GATS such as Articles II, V:4, XVI and XX and paragraph 3 and 4 of the GATS Annex on Movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services. These measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles III:3 and IV:1 of the GATS," the WTO said.

What particular upsets India is that they had been lobbying the US not to change this visa policy, which fell upon deaf ears anyway:

The US government has doubled the fees for temporary work visas for skilled professionals like H1B and L1 visas to $4,000 and $4,500 respectively. India is the largest user of H1B and L1 visas -- taking 67.4 percent of the 161,369 H1B and 28.2 percent of the 71,513 L1 visas issued in FY14.

US President Barack Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 on December 18, 2015, with the provisions applicable to companies that employ 50 or more persons in the US with more than 50 percent of them holding H1B or L1 non-immigrant status. This will remain effective till September 30, 2025.

Despite repeated requests from the Indian government, the US administration went ahead with its decision, which came into force on December 18, 2015. The US decision is expected to impact the Indian IT and ITES industry.

The complaint is viewed as "tit for tat" against the superpower, which has used the WTO as a forum to snub Indian government's plans to encourage its solar industry by offering subsidies to the manufacturers, as well as reduce its dependence on Indian imports, something encouraged as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Make in India program.

If nothing else, it gives trade lawyers work :-)

Maybe "Korean multiculturalism" won't be an oxymoron in the near future.

When it comes to the least fertile countries in the world, East Asian ones are pretty much at the bottom of global league tables. Since the demographic consequences of this phenomenon are dire--ever-fewer workers supporting a larger number of economically inactive--these countries have naturally been investigating solutions ranging from increasing benefits for new parents to improving the image of parenthood. To date, none have really worked in East Asia.

Enter migration: if people will not have children of their own who will eventually enter the workforce, why not bring in persons of working age from abroad? Better than wait for children to grow, they can work now. As relatively homogeneous societies, however, the fear remains that of cultural dilution. That said, there may be differences even among East Asian countries.

Consider South Korea. Make no mistake: On the balance, the general public holds negative views of migrant workers:

More than half of Koreans have a negative attitude towards foreign workers residing here, a recent survey showed. In a survey by local pollster Gallup Korea, 54 per cent of respondents said that the migration of foreign workers to Korea is "not a good thing." The study was conducted on 1,500 Koreans aged 19 and above.

Thirty-nine per cent said that it is a "good thing," which is significantly lower than the 57 per cent average across the 69 countries that participated in this global survey.

That said, multi-ethnic marriages and families are becoming more of a staple in South Korea. Call it another globalization phenomenon:

Interracial marriages [...] have grown since the 1990s in largely homogenous South Korea as the country started opening up following the end of military rule in 1993, and its people engaged in trade and tourism exchanges with nationals of neighbouring countries, including China, Vietnam and the Philippines.

As of 2014, there were 795,000 multicultural family members, comprising South Koreans, their foreign spouses and their biracial children, living in the nation of 50 million people, according to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. The country is also home to about 1.7 million foreigners.

Over 63 per cent of interracial marriages are between South Korean men and foreign-born women, the majority of whom hail from China, Japan and South-east Asian countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. South Korean women marrying foreign men make up 24 per cent, and the rest are marriages that include one or two naturalised foreigners.

Unlike Japan, South Korea's government has been more active in changing public attitudes towards these multi-ethnic families:

Last November [2015], a revision to the Multicultural Families Act was made to put greater emphasis on changing biased views of these families, preventing discrimination of biracial children and encouraging more openness among Koreans towards these families.

This marks a shift in the government's policy, from merely integrating migrant spouses into the Korean society to more active efforts at promoting multiracial harmony. Details are being worked out and will be announced later.

While it's true that Korea's government is dragging its foot somewhat on the subject matter, there is a clear difference with Japan which has not really tackled the issue of acceptance in a significant way. In this respect, Korea is ahead--if only slight so, it's still a meaningful public policy difference.

You see a major Jordanian camp for Syrians refugees in Zaatari; the EBRD sees a development opportunity.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was founded in the aftermath of WWII to rebuild a continent shattered by that conflict. It is one of four regional development banks together with those in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. Until recently, the EBRD's mission has not strayed far from providing funding for, yes, European reconstruction and development. In recent decades, it has helped transition economies from the former Soviet bloc move to capitalist systems.

Now, though, comes an element of "mission creep": with Middle East turmoil driving millions upon millions of refugees to European shores, the EBRD is now tasked with helping staunch this massive flow of humanity. How? By promoting economic development in Middle Eastern countries that are currently hosting large numbers of refugees:

This realization has prompted the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to find a new calling: crisis development. Created after the fall of the Berlin Wall to help Europe's ex-communist nations become market economies, the EBRD controversially moved on to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia after the Arab Spring. Last summer, as he watched TV coverage of refugees coming to Europe, the bank's president, Suma Chakrabarti, told me he saw "an opportunity to show we are relevant to crisis situations." Now Lebanon has applied for EBRD membership.

Thus went the call for funding for Middle East projects:

In October, Chakrabarti says he got the EBRD's board to agree to a new approach. It would help stabilize refugee host countries by corralling funds and private investors to deal with the consequences of sudden population explosions and treat them as a development opportunity. On Wednesday, he announced a 900-million euro program. "We're ready to go," says Chakrabarti. All that's required is for donor countries to provide 400 million euros, and for the host countries to cooperate.

Jordan is currently one of the targeted nations given its massive population surge from refugees settling there:

In 2010, the population of Lebanon was around 4.3 million. By last summer the CIA estimated that figure at 6.2 million, mostly because of refugees from Syria. It is, said Lebanon's education minister Elias Bou Saab, as though 32 million people had suddenly descended on Britain...

Start with sewage. Already straining, Jordan's system can't cope with 1.4 million extra Syrians, so the first EBRD project would strengthen the network in the Zarqa River area, north of Amman. Then landfills - they're full. New ones have to be built.

Jordan, the second most water-poor country on earth, has had to halve cistern deliveries in some areas. Leaking water pipes need repair. Four hundred schools are running double shifts -- local kids in the morning, Syrians in the afternoon. More schools need to be built. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Transportation systems are overrun. Digging landfills and laying pipes is labor intensive, as is building schools and hospitals -- which is good. The work can employ both locals and Syrians.

Maybe it should now be called the EMEBRD--the European and Middle Eastern Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

There's an interesting story in Bloomberg about how a largely oil-importing nation, the Philippines, can be negatively affected overall by lower oil prices. Sure, the country benefits from lower oil prices to an extent. However, in the larger scheme of things, matters appear less rosy. As a large labor exporter, the Philippines has, since the first oil shock, sent large numbers of migrant workers to the Middle East. With the country dependent on workers' remittances from abroad to improve its external position--the Philippines runs a sizable trade deficit annually but nevertheless manages a current account surplus due to the aforementioned remittances--current trends are worrying:

The share of remittances coming from the Middle East could be as high as 40 percent, compared with 23 percent in the official [Philippine] data, according to a Jan. 27 research note by Michael Wan, a Credit Suisse Group AG analyst in Singapore. Remittance growth slowed to 3.6 percent in dollar terms last year through November, from 5.8 percent in 2014, central bank data show. Volumes have held up reasonably well so far, said Wan.

That could change as the impact of a 29 percent drop in Brent crude over the past six months forces Saudi Arabia to cut generous subsidies to its citizens, while the United Arab Emirates’ Etihad Rail suspended a major rail project this week after firing almost a third of its workforce. Brent recovered to around $35 on Monday after falling to a 12-year low of $27.10 a barrel on Jan. 20.

“Before, when the trouble would be concentrated in one of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa, the workers could just simply move to a neighboring country and find employment,” central bank Governor Amando Tetangco said Jan. 25. “Now the trouble is more widespread.”

Aside from affecting land-based workers in the Middle East, another possible avenue for low oil prices negatively impacting the Philippines is via reduced crew aboard oil services-related ships.  Somewhere between a fifth to a fourth of all seafarers worldwide are Filipino, so it follows:

As well as declining oil prices, a more general slowdown in global trade is affecting the job prospects of Filipino seamen. Many drillers and oil-service companies have suspended operations and shipping companies are also hurting, said Nelson Ramirez, the president of United Filipino Seafarers. “I have talked to one of the biggest crew suppliers of offshore vessels,” he said in Manila. “They have many laid-up ships. There will be more job losses.”

The World Bank president prescribes migration to cure a slowing world economy.

There's some good commentary from World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on how migration can help support faltering global economic growth. The notions are fairly simple and understood economically: Legions of elderly in the developed world are not productive and pose a strain on national resources insofar as they have sizable guaranteed pension and health care benefits. Meanwhile, as recent headlines from Europe demonstrate, there are also vast numbers of migrants from poor countries eager to work in rich countries given the opportunity. Not only can they provide the economic output necessary to help support growing old age populations in the developed world, but they also provide demand for consumer goods and other things.

Kim cites the example of OECD member Turkey as a net beneficiary of migration

Today, on average, a refu­gee can expect to remain a refu­gee for 17 years. So we need to move beyond humanitarian assistance to development solutions. If host countries can create a path for refugees to participate in their economies — as Turkey is doing — everybody benefits. These benefits are even greater when rich countries, especially those with declining populations, take in refugees. Most of the evidence suggests that refugees, like economic migrants in general, work hard and contribute more in taxes than they consume in social services.

That said, there remain societal differences--he gives the example of his native South Korea--that restrain the acceptability of migration:

I was recently in South Korea, where I raised the issue of accepting immigrants, whether they are from neighboring Asian countries or anywhere else. I asked whether a person from Indonesia, or Tanzania or Syria, could ever become a “hyphenated Korean,” as I’ve become a Korean-American . The answers I received made it clear that, despite the great benefits that Koreans have derived from being able to move to all corners of the earth, “Syrian-Koreans” probably will not be accepted as full members of Korean society anytime soon.

Ultimately, though, necessity will likely win out in the migration debate:

But South Korea, like many wealthier countries, has an aging population, and it needs an influx of younger workers to continue on its remarkable path of economic growth. The great challenge for many advanced economies is to manage such changes and welcome migrants and refugees with a plan to help them settle and perhaps eventually become citizens, just as I became a citizen of the United States at the age of 12.

This is a smart strategy, especially during these times of low global economic growth. Countries that welcome refugees, and help other countries to productively host them, will be doing the right thing — both for our fellow human beings who are suffering and for the global economy.

Would-be Trump voters and assorted bigots aside, who's to argue with such logic? If only things were so simple in cultural terms as they were in economic ones, though.

The many forgotten Africans seeking European asylum.

The fate of Syrian refugees is making the headlines nowadays and raises questions about the future of pan-European migration policy. In a way it's a reprise of monetary policy, asking whether a singular migration regime suits countries varying in demographics, development, and the ability to welcome migrants. One of the notable things about Syrian refugees is that many of them are quite technology-savvy, with an article noting how adept they are at using smartphones to find their way if and when they reach Europe and to find relatives already there:

Far different from the Syrians clambering off boats in Greece, the Africans land in Sicily penniless and empty-handed. When I ask to see what they carried with them, most look puzzled, then point to the clothes on their back. “I arrived with nothing, not even my documents,” said Mandjo, 16, from Guinea, who fled when religious violence destroyed his village. What little he grabbed as he fled was lost to bandits along the way.

Now, the plight of African refugees like Mandjo risks getting lost amid the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, aid officials say. “It’s important to us that Europe is now beginning to talk about opening their borders and welcoming refugees,” says Giovanna Di Benedetto of Save the Children in Sicily. “But it is not only Syrians who have to be welcomed.”

To underscore her point, Di Benedetto whips out her iPhone to show me photos of dead African infants whose bodies washed ashore on a beach off Zuwara, Libya on August 28, when their smugglers’ boat capsized. About 200 people drowned when the ship overturned.

Five days later, a photo on a beach off Bodrum, Turkey showed another dead toddler: Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy. That image finally jolted EU leaders into action. “Syrians of course need help, but they are not the only ones,” Di Benedetto says. Shaking her head at the photos of dead African children on her phone, she says she wonders whether Aylan’s “white skin” made the difference.

Cherishing those rare time mum is home in Romania.

It's that time of the year again when that quintessential display of European unity (really) and sheer weirdness comes around. Yes, it is time for Eurovision 2015.  In recent years, winners have included Finnish Klingons in Lordi and a bearded Austrian transgender, er, performer in Conchita Wurst. Like most entertainment, it is larger than life and over the top--but not always. This year, we have performers tackling the rather more serious but quite common issue of transnational families within the European Union separated by economic migration.

Given that the Romanian economy has never really taken off in quite the same way as, say, Poland, outmigration continues apace. Hence, the phenomenon of transnational families where the parent(s) work abroad and the children stay at home has become a prevalent social issue. As it so happens, Romania's entry tackles just this issue since there are some 3 million Romanians working elsewhere out of  a population of 20 million. That's a lot of economic migrants:

With just days to go before they perform at the Eurovision song contest, the Romanian pop-rock group Voltaj are rehearsing their hearts out. For them, the competition is not just about representing their country but also about giving voice to thousands of children who grow up alone in Romania, with parents forced to go West to find work. The five-member band is well established in the ex-communist state, now the European Union's second-poorest after Bulgaria, and home to some 20 million people.

Their ballad "All Over Again" draws attention to an oft-ignored flipside of European migration -- the youngsters left behind. The problem affects "whole generations of children" who face "severe, long-term trauma" because they are forced to make it through their formative years without parents' support, Voltaj singer Calin Goia told AFP. "I've been asked whether I think the subject matter will interest a foreign audience. And I think it will, because the topic of child-parent relationships is universal," he said.

Some 350,000 Romanian children -- almost 10 percent of the country's total child population -- have at least one parent living abroad, according to Save the Children and Alternative Sociale, another NGO. The government puts the figure much lower at 82,339. In neighbouring Bulgaria, 267,000 children share their lot, according to a recent study by the Partners Bulgaria foundation. The children are cared for by grandparents or aunts and uncles, though some live in state-run households as they wait for their parents to return.

Get the !@#$ outta Greece: the only hope for the future?

Oh, dear. Of all the woes besetting modern Greece, here's one that not many talk about but probably will have the greatest impact going forward: the mass exodus of educated young people continues apace. When they install some vainglorious, bald-headed action star wannabe as finance minister, you know that things have only one way to go in the near future: down. With EU membership (for now) guaranteeing freedom of movement, there really is no need for college graduates and other holders of advanced "human capital" to stick around:

A devastating brain drain is luring away the best and brightest of Greece’s workforce, several reports showed, with estimates varying between 180,000 and 200,000 well-educated citizens leaving the cash-strapped nation. At that rate, the exodus translates to about 10% of the country’s total university-educated workforce, said Lois Lambrinidis, a professor of economic geography at the University of Macedonia.

On a macro level, this movement is a clear brain drain, said Nicholas Alexiou, a sociology professor at CUNY’s Queens College who studies Greek immigration patterns. What differentiates a brain drain from other types of migrant waves is the high percentage of skilled and educated people who leave the country, Alexiou said.

In other words, Greece is losing its “youngest, best and brightest,” as a European University Institute study dated March 2014 noted. According to the study, of those who have left 88% hold a university degree, and of those, over 60% have a master's degree, while 11% hold a Ph.D. According to the EUI report, 79% of those who left Greece during the crisis were actually employed but felt that there was “no future” in the country (50%) or no professional opportunities (25%).

The brain drain is differentiated from other exodus in the smartest leaving, and affects all sorts of economic matters:

It has fiscal implications, affecting income and consumption taxes, among others. But the brain drain also deprives the country of the capacity to generate higher-value production, said Joan Vidra, a former Moody’s analyst who now heads the sovereign-ratings department at ARC Ratings. Even in tourism, despite the increase in the number of international visitors, total income decreased by 36%, according to a study by Endeavor, an international nonprofit supporting entrepreneurship.

Things could get even worse, as around 35,000 young Greeks are currently studying abroad and could decide to seek employment outside the country, the report noted. Not to mention the number of Greeks living in the country who are in the process of relocating. In January 2014, Greek newspaper “To Vima” published a study by Greek market research firm Kapa Research, which showed that 70% of Greek recent graduates wish to work abroad and 10% are already actively looking for a job in a different country.

So, where do these highly educated Greeks go? Overall, the most popular destination is the U.K., followed by Germany and the Netherlands, according to the EUI study. Endeavor’s study says that for those up to 35-years-old (and for moves strictly related to employment — excluding studies, family or other reasons to migrate), the most popular destination is Germany. Germany and U.K. are the most popular destinations accounting for more than 50% of the work-related immigration below the age of 35, said an Endeavor spokesperson.

It behooves me to classify Greece as a "developed" nation when its GDP has already shrunken by 25%, but hey, this remains a case of North-North migration using current country classifications. As the article later notes, one of the main beneficiaries of Greece's implosion in terms of human capital are the Germans, who can pick off the best and the brightest of them to work in the rather more secure confines of Deutschland--another unexpected consequence or regional integration.

In the meantime, the same advice that Ice T gave residents of LA ghettos in the early Nineties is perfectly applicable to Greece's situation as generation upon generations of them will likely pay for the mistakes of their predecessors:

No one wants to live in an urban war
You live there 'cause your parents were poor
They live there because theirs were also
Get yourself together 
Hit the gates bro!

The only ones left will be those desperate enough to think voting in nutcases like Syriza will fix Greece's woes. When sanity has left, you might as well, too.