Chinese Workers Abandon Silicon Valley for Riches Back Home

I'm curious what makes you worry about (1). To me it seems like the exact opposite (foreign students pay the full tuition without any subsidy from the US, and are a critical source of revenue for many American universities)

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollme...

I had a number of Chinese-national friends at university (a big public university) who received significant scholarships from the school.

(It could be it was a subsidy-exchange between the university and a chinese institution but I didn't get that impression. It could have been a private party as well. In any case it was definitely a scholarship by a US institution - not sure if public or private.)

These friends were brilliant and couldn't have afforded to attend without it. However: last I heard, they have all since moved back to China and are doing quite well for themselves.

This is objectively good news for these people, but that scholarship money was effectively just given to China. There are ripple benefits that aren't so tangible (added diversity, the chance that they could have stayed, the impact they had while here, etc).

Overall it seems "fair" that scholarship money should be converted to a loan if the education isn't used long-term in the same economy as the scholarship.

Why? If those scholarships were awarded on merit (they likely were), why should they be based on where the tuition waiver is "used?" Exceptional undergraduates provide value to the school while being in it as well as what they do after finishing their education.

These scholarships were almost certainly awarded by the institution, not the federal government.

I explicitly called out the value they provide while being in the school. I doubt that they provided $100k in such value, but I could be wrong.

I don't care about where waiver "should" be used as this is subjective, I'm merely talking about what's "fair" economically which is theoretically objective. If the US hands out "good job" money in the form of net-economy-negative subsidies, then it explains a lot of what's going on in higher education.

I wouldn't limit this to just internationals as well. If you get a huge subsidy to go to a US school and then leave the country it's the same situation even if you're a US citizen.

>> If the US hands out "good job" money

>> If you get a huge subsidy to go to a US school

The "US?" The school is the US? In the vast majority of cases, the institution hands out the waiver, not the government. Furthermore, international students are regularly charged a premium to attend.

If Microsoft pays me a huge salary, I learn a ton before contributing significantly back to private software industry, then quit and move to Canada, do I owe... taxpayers... Microsoft?... remuneration?

Traditionally, the US have routinely awared stipends and scholarships to foreign students who had a potential to be somebody 10-20 years down the road (influencing politician, diplomat, journalist, scholar etc.). The idea was that these people would be immersed in the American view of the world and would then propagate it in their home country.

Right - the assumption is that in the long run the scholarship will be a net-positive to the US economy. This article kinda says that this assumption isn't valid (or at least is decreasingly valid).

> In the vast majority of cases, the institution hands out the waiver

This is still (probably) a draw from the US economy on net. Unless the institution is offsetting it somehow or is somehow not a part of the US economy.

> do I owe... taxpayers... Microsoft?... remuneration?

If Microsoft paid a lot to train you up and you leave before they get that value back, then they may want you to repay them.

That's generally not how things are done, but if the learn-and-run thing that this article talks about were to spread more into private industries, I can imagine private companies either paying less during the first N months or having minimum-term work-contracts with early-termination fees.

What is often lost in discussions is that if the individuals are conservative in thought, they more than likely feel a deep obligation to return home to take care of aging parents. Doesn't speak poorly about the US system per se.

> If Microsoft paid a lot to train you up and you leave before they get that value back, then they may want you to repay them.

Who's going to pay back societies that send off educated, healthy young adults to the US economy? The value invested in individuals does not accrue all at once while they are at university.

It makes zero sense to try and balance the value at level of individuals. It is better to look at it at a larger scale (tens of thousands to millions) and approximate the value of what's coming in and leaving. There is a lot of guess-work involved, especially around future-value. There are no precise control-knobs to get the exact number and caliber of people you want; the best countries can do is set policies and hope for the best, without accounting for second and third order effects.

I don't think such geopolitical ploys apply to technical workers.