• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Not if you stayed, then it’s an investment. Money doesn’t just disappear when goes to poor people, they use it to buy things like food and stuff. It would only be a financial drain if you were sending that money back home.

    The North American mind cannot comprehend the benefits of supporting the poor.

    • Kacarott@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      57 minutes ago

      This is correct, though the initial drain might still be too much if there was literally a big exodus all at once. Maybe if the refugees from the US distributed fairly evenly across the various countries it could work?

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Perhaps strain would be a better word than drain - it would still be a short-mid term financial burden to take even a tiny fraction of the sane population from the US, it’s a big country. Sure would be nice if it could be arranged though…

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I get that, the initial investment would be pretty significant.

      I’m not against it of course, I just think it’s necessary to understand the risks of any gamble.