Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

As Russia Sees Tech Brain Drain, Other Nations Hope To Gain (apnews.com) 119

Posted by msmash from the you're-on-your-own dept.
Russia's tech workers are looking for safer and more secure professional pastures. By one estimate, up to 70,000 computer specialists, spooked by a sudden frost in the business and political climate, have bolted the country since Russia invaded Ukraine five weeks ago. Many more are expected to follow. From a report: For some countries, Russia's loss is being seen as their potential gain and an opportunity to bring fresh expertise to their own high-tech industries. Russian President Vladimir Putin has noticed the brain drain even in the throes of a war that, according to the U.N. refugee agency, has caused more than 4 million people to flee Ukraine and displaced millions more within the country.

This week, Putin reacted to the exodus of tech professionals by approving legislation to eliminate income taxes between now and 2024 for individuals who work for information technology companies. Some people in the vast new pool of high-tech exiles say they are in no rush to return home. An elite crowd furnished with European Union visas has relocated to Poland or the Baltic nations of Latvia and Lithuania. A larger contingent has fallen back on countries where Russians do not need visas: Armenia, Georgia and the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. In normal times, millions of less-skilled laborers emigrate from those economically shaky countries to comparatively more prosperous Russia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As Russia Sees Tech Brain Drain, Other Nations Hope To Gain More

As Russia Sees Tech Brain Drain, Other Nations Hope To Gain

Comments Filter:

  • In the next few decades, as many post-industrial nations begin seeing falling populations (including the US, in which the 2040 census will likely be the first census in US history to document a decline in population), nations will be fighting with each other for immigrants.

    If public anti-immigration policies don't change quickly, industrial and service economies will be severely strained.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

      To continue this thought, "pro-family" policies don't seem to help at all. Sweden, for example, has MANY very pro-family policies. They functionally straight up pay adults to have kids, and rational professional adults still voluntarily choose to decrease the size of their families.

      The only answer is to start passing public policies which promote more immigration.

      • those are shown to result in more pregnancies. "Pro family" means "forced families".

        Male Birth Control is coming soon though (there's a topical gel in human trials that're going well and will likely be on market in a few years, and 3 or 4 pills that are entering trials too) and there's so much money to be made there (and let's face it, the kind of person who wants to ban birth control mostly wants to ban it for women...) that it'll be hard to do.

        Also studies have shown banning abortion doesn't reduc

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

          I have no doubt that as populations begin to decline and services become more difficult to find (which is already happening) then old men in power will begin to completely lose their minds trying to find solutions. Some will choose wisely, others will choose poorly.

          The only solution that will work to grow economies is to encourage immigration. You can only automate so much. Economies need warm bodies.

      • Re:Immigration is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Friday April 01, 2022 @10:25AM (#62408064)

        Sweden's "pro family" policies are massively outweighed by anti-family and anti-male policies. Men don't want to risk forming a pair bond in a world where divorce is easy and they de facto automatically lose in divorce court unless they're rocket surgeons and woman is a drug addicted child molester. In which case, it's going to be about 50/50. Add to that that between 70 and 80% percent of all divorces are initiated by women, and men just tend to walk away from the entire institution of marriage nowadays to the point where nations are starting to force divorce-style legislation on just male and female cohabiting under pressure from feminist organisations who see their legal gains against men collapse alongside the institution that those laws were linked to.

        And women tend to not have many children when they don't feel secure in their social situation. That means that single mothers that got that one kid in their thirties because of horrible baby fever are done getting children with that one child, and women that are married will often have a partner who will straight up refuse to have a child because of extreme financial risk of being divorced with children. Turns out state is a pretty shitty husband. Can't go to bed at night and lay on the shoulder of a bureaucrat paying you social assistance. It's utterly depressing when you look at numbers of things like "lonely women who report crying themselves to sleep at least once a week" nowadays.

        Add to this the general hedonism, narcissism and the difficulty of maintaining a stable relationship in the time of dating apps and ease of access to hook ups within modern cultures, and you get to the point where institution of marriage which is the primary means of granting females the sense of security that enable desire to have more than one child is dying. And with it, desire in women to have children is dying. And we're seeing this in collapse of birth rates right next to the sex segregated happiness charts. Female happiness is collapsing, male happiness is rising. Turns out that when you tell men that they don't have to take on obligation of supporting a family, they become happier, whereas telling women that they can form the family all by themselves makes them miserable.

        It's worth noting that there is one nation in EU that managed to actually reverse this trend through policies emphasizing family and attempting to mitigate anti-family policies and practices, resulting in higher birth rates a few years after the policies got first instituted. Hungary.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Men don't want to risk forming a pair bond in a world where divorce is easy and they de facto automatically lose in divorce court unless they're rocket surgeons and woman is a drug addicted child molester. In which case, it's going to be about 50/50. Add to that that between 70 and 80% percent of all divorces are initiated by women, and men just tend to walk away from the entire institution of marriage nowadays to the point where nations are starting to force divorce-style legislation on just male and female cohabiting under pressure from feminist organisations who see their legal gains against men collapse alongside the institution that those laws were linked to.

          Oh please, that's ridiculous. Very few people think about divorce in the context of getting married. That's one of the big reasons why we have such high divorce rates.

          • You're argument needs basis. It's not clear high divorce rates come from not considering it. It may be the ensuring turmoil that's comes from the reality it's not easy to live with many people, especially as person freedoms grow.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              It's not clear high divorce rates come from not considering it.

              It's more clear then unfavorable divorce conditions for men causing men not to get married. The unfavorable conditions for men Luckyo outlines only come up in a minority of divorce trials which in themselves only make up about 5% of total divorces in the US. In other words, they are extremely unlikely to happen to any man getting married.

              • I can think of cases where the guy ends up being paid the alimony. Remember, women are allowed to have high paying jobs now too. In many cases the cost of divorce is split, both partners have livable incomes and the pain is with deciding what days the kids are with which parent.

                Though I have a friend who seems to have a lifetime grudge, depression, bitterness over a divorce. It's not healthy. Best to get over it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

              I don't know about what the cause of high divorce rates are, but if people getting married were more aware of the rates of divorce then prenuptial contract law would be far more profitable and popular a field.

              It would be a least as common as divorce law, but I rarely see lawyers advertising their prenuptial services on highway billboards.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Demonix ( 140379 )

          The one time I wish i had mod points...

          This is it right here - the entire institution of marriage is full of obligation and responsibility for men without any social or economic reward. What man with his wits about him would enter into such an arrangement?

          There is no respect to be gained, or position to be won - just an eventual tossing aside by the mother of your children to 'find herself' and crushing child support payments for children you get to see once a month, if you're lucky.

          No, marriage is dead to

          • If you reduce marriage to a pros / cons list, sure. However, there are intangibles - such as having a partner through thick and thin, if you've done it right. Someone to share experiences with. Someone to grow a deep and trusting relationship with.

            It sounds like you're down on marriage because you were once married and it didn't work out, so all that's left is bitter saltiness and child support payments. And that's sad and all too common, but it's also not everyone's experience.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by fazig ( 2909523 )
              Technically you don't need marriage for growing such a deep and trusting relationship. It should be also pretty obvious that you can have children without marriage.
              I find it also weird that marriage is conflated family and then also with having children here (not by you), while there's plenty of childless marriages and plenty of children to parents that are not married.
              So what remains of marriages as an institution is the social contract between two consenting people and the state, as well as the privileg

              • I don't understand the bitterness about child support either. I mean, if they stayed married he'd be paying just as much. Hopefully they get half time visitation, it's not like the kids are gone forever unless there are situations where the judge felt it wasn't safe. Sometimes I think there's a kind of entitlement that some men have - they need to be the boss, it's never their fault if something goes wrong, how come a martini isn't waiting for me when I come home like Hollywood promised...

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by fazig ( 2909523 )
                  That's why I mention incels and MRA.
                  I think as well that there's some entitlement going around. From my perspective it seems mainly based on (often religious) tradition and some nostalgia about the *past having been better, by whatever arbitrary measure.

                  And I'm not going to claim that there isn't abuse of a system that has given women more rights.
                  Because just like with any system, there can be and there is abuse. I'm claiming that things are blown way out of proportion. Some people seem to predominantly

          • What about women? They also have obligations and responsibility? Or are you from a part of the world where women don't have jobs or are unequal partners in a marriage? Also, why would a woman put up with a man who has an attitude that he's giving up something by getting married?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            No, marriage is dead to men. There's nothing in it for us.

            Just because no one will marry you or you had a bad divorce doesnt mean "marriage is dead to men".

        • Having kids in Sweden without being married isn't frowned upon much at all, so your divorce fears likely don't matter. Probably don't extend the feelings from your personal marriage disasters onto others.

          The main reason is likely that kids are expensive, and not even in Sweden are 100% of the costs covered. But that's ok, a declining population is a good thing! I am always surprised that so many countries seem panicked over a declining population; there are plenty of people in third world countries where

      • More immigration of people whose productivity is below the existing national average will actually make the situation worse, by shrinking the per-capita pie. Unfortunately, that is the kind of immigration most immigration advocates have in mind, such as Latin American peasants, or Syrian manual laborers.

        • Or poor white trash from other states? You also seem to forget the immigrants who aren't poor peasants, the doctors arriving as refugees who have to take jobs as janitors, or the child of farmers who actually formed a big tech company?

          For all your stereotypes, where are the white kids wanting to become manual laborers or bend over a strawberry field all day for below minimum wage? Probably the same people arguing that there are too many immigrants is also arguing that there shouldn't be a minimum wage eith

    • Of course it is - especially in the US where Social Security has been raided and depends on a pyramid scheme of an ever-growing workforce to keep solvent.

    • assuming we don't go back to massively destabilizing south American countries. With those countries increasingly legalizing drugs (thereby breaking up the drug cartels) and with it harder for our CIA to operate with impunity (harder, not impossible, but I think it's pretty clear we tried to install a puppet in Venezuela and failed) I think we'll see less of that.

      This means those countries will finally start to modernize too... and with it their birth rates will drop. Hell, even India and China are at or

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

        China is way below replacement. Even China's own internal reports (which are probably favorable estimates for China) confirm this. More likely estimates from International Orgs estimate China is barely above 1.0 births per women. Unless their culture changes dramatically in some way, they are going to see a shocking generational collapse in the next 20 years.

        • Around 60% of pregnancies are "unplanned". I used to work pretty low end jobs and I can't tell you how many guys I knew whose wives got pregnant on the pill. I know at least one guy whose wife just outright admitted she stopped taking the pills because her mother convinced her to. When men have access to birth control that's going to be a population shift like you wouldn't believe. Picture birth rates cutting in half. Increasingly educated women who have other things to do in their lives besides raise child

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

            I think it's likely that, if a general use male contraception is successfully developed and approved, that there will be a minor decline in birth rates. Though it won't be dramatic at all, at least not in comparison to the decline in birth rates following the advent of female contraception when babies per woman dropped from 12 to less than 2 in 50 years (obviously). But it might push it down below 1 in many countries.

            (Also remember, there IS already highly effective male contraception readily available and

        • Dui. China is trying hard to fix this. I know first hand but always trying to predict if they can fix the problem.

          Honestly replacement might only be necessary after a few decades excluding the economical challenges of a shrinking population. China is the same physical size as the US and has 3 to 4 times the people, yet the US has strongly dominated much of the world in economics and culture.

          How will China adjust in light of this is complex but it's likely it could be fine with a smaller population despite g

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

            Yes, China has recognized it's issue and is working to fix it. But China's population bomb problem is that the people in China don't WANT more kids. Almost all were raised without siblings and their family structures have evolved to support one kid. And that's going to be hard for China to change. And then they are looking at a situation where there is 1 youth supporting 6 adults. That's a tricky balance. And, of course, this problem isn't unique to China. Most industrialized/post-industrialized nations are

      • When a country has to take steps to prevent it's young people from leaving, you can rest assured that they're already on the ropes and just sort of coasting in towards a crash. I was NEVER worried about the USSR taking over the world. Why? One big reason was the iron curtain. A clear-cut sign of severe societal weakness.

        Nowadays, it's even worse, in huge chunks of the planet. No value judgements here - but the hard truth is that the "one-and-done" strategy is basically an admission that the conditions

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

          Nowadays, it's even worse, in huge chunks of the planet. No value judgements here - but the hard truth is that the "one-and-done" strategy is basically an admission that the conditions for reproduction are so hostile that population shrinkage is preferable.

          I don't think you have to be that negative. "One and done" can also mean that conditions for livelihood are so *GOOD* that focusing on one single child's prosperity while maintaining certain adult freedoms for yourself is preferable. Honestly that's where my family is. My wife and I could easily afford more children, but instead CHOOSE to limit the size of our family because we want to continue to enjoy our lives. It's easy to afford to take 1 or 2 kids to Disney World and have a great time. It's more diffi

        • What you're seeing here is a fundamental shift in human civilization. The countries aren't forcing young people to stay because they are collapsing. It's because nobody's having any babies and they're just aren't enough young people to go around. So good for the first time since world War II people under the age of 50 become a valuable commodity.

          That's very different than what you're talking about were young people are fleeing a failed state. You can have a country with a strong economy and plenty of fo
          • You're right. I should clarify. There are two types of strategies to keeping young people - there's the "make life good so they want to stay" strategy and the "let's put up barriers so they can't leave even if they want to" strategy.

            My comment was specific to the coercive types of retainment strategies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        We'll see, if I can draw any conclusions on this by observing the world around me it's that rising to first world status from second or third in a modern context is hard. Since WW2 the only nations that have done so that I can think of are Asian and there aren't a lot, meanwhile tons of countries have been trying.

        I cant imagine Latin America is going to be changing much in the next couple decades at the very least. Those countries just have a ton of hurdles to get over most of which you don't seem to be ack

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

          Your problem is that "First/Second/Third World" designations are faulty (and generally racist). It's also a moving goalpost.

          Many nations today that most people would consider "Third World" would have appeared to be First World to someone living in the 1950s. And similarly, much of the US in the 1950s would look "Third World" today.

          Ultimately, nations should only be compared with themselves. Pick your particular measurement of choice and discuss how nations are developing on that metric.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Your problem is that "First/Second/Third World" designations are faulty (and generally racist). It's also a moving goalpost.

            Many nations today that most people would consider "Third World" would have appeared to be First World to someone living in the 1950s. And similarly, much of the US in the 1950s would look "Third World" today.

            First through third world designations arent perfect but they are completely adequate for the purposes of a conversation like this. The fact is that our standard of living in the US is much higher than that in Latin America and given all the challenges those countries have in improving their lot in life I don't think that's changing any time in the next couple of decades. As long as that is the case we are going to keep receiving large numbers of immigrants.

        • It's hard to do when the other major world powers are actively trying to prevent you from doing that so they can explore with your resources and cheap labor. We're not the only ones who do this the Soviet Union did it plenty of times. United Kingdom did it for centuries with their empire. Go to a little reading sometimes about the scars left in India from the UK. Pretty much every nation given the chance will exploit other nations for profit.

          If you're the one making that money it's fine but very little

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Okay, familiar with all that. I still don't think there's much chance that any part of Latin America will reach first world status in the next couple of decades so the immigrants will still be coming for at least that long.

      • The US doesn't need more housekeepers working for pennies for rich people and will need social assistance to raise their children. Legal immigration of educated people that will increase the countries tax base are great and many support legal immigration.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by spun ( 1352 )

      Wait, so capitalism only works when the population is growing? I don't get it. Fewer people means less need for goods and services, right? How is that a strain? Seems "fewer people" means cheaper everything, as there is less demand for things. Either that, or higher wages as there is more demand for workers.

      Seems like letting in more immigrants is really good for the class of folks that exploits workers, but not so much for the rest of us.

      That being said, I think the whole concept of borders is bullshit. Th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

        I understand how you get there, but the economy isn't that simple. Not everyone can be a computer software engineer. Some people have to be farmers to sell food to those software engineers. Someone has to package and ship the food to the grocery stores, and then someone has to stock the shelves.

        Ultimately the economy is people doing jobs. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs to do and if there aren't people to do those jobs then those jobs don't get done and the economy will decline.

        • Ultimately the economy is people doing jobs. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs to do and if there aren't people to do those jobs then those jobs don't get done and the economy will decline.

          Many of those jobs you describe will just be automated away.

          The bigger concern with loss of population is the loss of a tax base to support the programs the older populations want and need.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

            Fewer things can be automated than most people think.

            Seriously, that is literally the lesson Elon Musk learned with his first Nevada Gigafactory that almost bankrupted Tesla.

            • Not as much as you think. You know the largest difference in American farming and the US is the machinery. It's just a stepping stone for automation. The only difference is terrain but this could be managed in China to allow more machinery and automaton. It mostly comes back to designing a good machine to plant rice and harvest it, given it's relatively unique conditions.

              Automaton can be embraced but it always requires Managerial insight. This is the problem. The only thing that hates change more than an av

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

                Again, a lot of jobs can be automated.

                If you just consider agriculture, for example, yes I can imagine much of rice production being automated. But how are you going to automate raspberry picking, for example? That's really hard to do and take a lot of visual intelligence and very very high precision and yet still soft touch pinchers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Tell us, how does this "borders only apply to the poor" concept test against reality of current sanctions on Russia?

        Hint: this is very much a fair weather concept.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          Huh? Rich people can leave Russia, poor Russians can not. Russian oligarchs may have lost some of their money, but by no means all. And they are not stuck in Russia, what a ludicrous idea. You know Putin's daughter is still in the Netherlands, right?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            That's not at all how current sanctions work. Even remotely. You apparently are unaware that pretty much all travel links have been severed, there are large lists of people who literally have lots of money and can't use it due to sanctions and your example of Russian rich travelling is... people who have been there since long before this even started and who have married locals.

      • Re: Immigration is necessary (Score:4)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Friday April 01, 2022 @11:12AM (#62408198)

        That's a really dumb perspective. Without borders there isn't any such thing as jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, you can't apply any laws (think about it: without borders, where do US laws apply? Do Canadians have to obey US laws?) And of course, without laws you don't have civilization. Borders have existed since time immemorial. Even animals have a concept of borders. Borders are inherently biological -- think about cell structures and homeostasis.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          I guess what I want is for the whole world to be like the EU or the US. Different states can make different laws, but nobody will stop you from travelling where you want to go. If you want to pack up and move to another state or country, borders won't stop you. I mean, that's how it works right now if you have money. One set of rules for the rich and another for the poor doesn't seem fair to me.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            Rich and poor have different reasons for migrating, and the poor massively outnumber the rich.

            The rich will generally go to places which are nicer for them to live, or because the tax rates there are lower. But even when tax rates are low, they are still bringing some money into the economy which makes them desirable for the country.

            Once countries are at relative economic parity it's much easier to have open borders because you won't have a one-way exodus.

            If you allow open borders between countries with sig

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spun ( 1352 )

              How would having more people destroy an economy? Why do you suppose that all poor people are net drains on the economy, while all rich people are net benefits? Seems the opposite to me. Poor people want to work. They put all the earn right back in to the economy. Rich people want to sit on their asses and earn income for doing nothing.

              Just going by history, you can turn a bunch of poor people into rich people in less than a generation. Both China and Russia went from subsistence economies to industrialized

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Bert64 ( 520050 )

                Because there is simply not enough work available in any given place to support a large number of new workers all arriving at the same time. They would flood the market, resulting in large numbers of unemployed both migrants and indigenous workers.
                The large surplus of workers would also push salaries down, so the rich would absolutely love that because they could pay their workers less. Who would suffer is the working and middle classes already in the area - including immigrants who arrived earlier.

                Most are

      • Wait, so capitalism only works when the population is growing?

        Capitalism only works when adequately controlled, whatever that looks like in the present economy. There's less profit available when markets aren't growing, so less profit can be taken out of the system without making it unsustainable. But too much profit has already been taken out in general, in many nations, and systems are failing. Like the health system in the US for example, since people have to pay for so much health care themselves, and it's been permitted to become so expensive, it only works when

      • Consumerism only works if there is an artificially-high amount of purchasing. The easiest way to accomplish that is more consumers. The other way is to put more money in the hands of the existing consumers, so they have more to spend. Too many people are sold on the idea that higher wages = smaller bonuses for management so management will never favor that approach. An ever-expanding population will ensure that there are always plenty of people competing for jobs, helping keep wages as low as possible. So,

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          Where would the profit come from in a non-growing, sustainable economy? How would capitalists accumulate capital? The only way would be by taking that profit from someone else. Stealing, in essence.

          You'd need to change capitalism into something fundamentally different from what it is today to make it work sustainably. It's a Ponzi scheme, it needs new suckers entering the system to be fleeced, or more efficient ways of fleecing suckers, or the whole thing collapses.

      • Wait, so capitalism only works when the population is growing?

        Consumerism only works when the population is growing. Ever increasing sales require ever increasing populations consuming ever more resources.

        Capitalism can work just fine in a stable environment. It can even work in a shrinking population, as long as production efficiency increases. Less labor required to produce necessary goods yields a higher standard of living.

        The people pushing for more immigration and ever increasing populations just want more consumers to feed next quarters increasing growth rate

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          Do you have any examples of capitalism actually working in a stagnant or shrinking economy? Wouldn't capitalists simply pull their money out of such an economy and invest it in some place that was giving better returns? Capitalism seems to require returns on investment that are actually larger than GDP growth. But maybe I'm missing something.

          • The stock market and the economy are not the same thing.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spun ( 1352 )

              But the stock market must be tied to the economy. How could it not be? What does it measure, then? Where does the money come from? If the stock market grows, the money must be coming from some place. Either it comes from a growing economy, or from certain people stealing from others. And if it grows faster than the economy, then it can only come from stealing. Unless we have some other planet full of money somewhere.

              And don't tell me it is government printing more money. The money supply must keep pace with

              • That is all pretty far off from your original comment (and mine)... this has devolved into a completely different discussion.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Agripa ( 139780 )

        Wait, so capitalism only works when the population is growing?

        Government ponzi schemes only work when the population is growing. That will not stop politicians from spending money now which will only be payed back by future workers, but it becomes more difficult to avoid responsibility.

    • I really doubt that. Historically, nations don't really do that. Look at Japan, their population is in steep decline, and they're not in any rush at all to take in immigrants.

    • We are already straining for resources, so we NEED to stop growing our population, not fight to increase it. In California, we barely have enough water, housing, electricity, and roads to support our current population. Thankfully, our population growth here is finally slowing down.

    • I don't think this article is so much about immigration, as it is about the emigration of a country's best and brightest to get away from a mass murdering war criminal cunt. It's almost as if laying siege to neighbor countries turns off intellectuals.

  • NPR Reported on this weeks ago. [npr.org] Russian programmers working for Western companies left quickly. There were reports of lines at ATMs in Turkey as Russians removed cash before their accounts were frozen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      In some way this is *very* old news; before the war polls showed a quarter of all college graduates wanted to emigrate and a majority of college students were seriously considering it. The brain drain problem has been affecting Russia for years now.

      The groups that have been most likely to want to emigrate are younger, more educated, and more urban. This is hardly surprising because it's the people who can most easily pick up their lives and start it new somewhere else, but the single biggest determining

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        That's not even close to numbers in the 1990s. If I remember correctly, back then it was in 70-80 percentile of young people who wanted to get out of Russia.

        It's how Putin was elected in the first place. To fix the absolute catastrophe that was Russian Federation in 1990s.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          More people want to stay in the country than after the fall of the Soviet Union is an extremely low bar to clear if that's what you consider success as a leader. With its natural wealth and human resources, Russia ought to be one of the wealthiest and happiest countries in the world.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            >More people want to stay in the country than after the fall of the Soviet Union is an extremely low bar to clear if that's what you consider success as a leader.

            But we're not talking about success as a leader. We're talking about what people know, understand and are willing to tolerate.

            >With its natural wealth and human resources, Russia ought to be one of the wealthiest and happiest countries in the world.

            I guess you've never seen a map or Russia. Russian geography is a stuff that nightmares are mad

      • "Putin is in office until he dies, so the only way not to live under his rule is go somewhere other than Russia."

        Trump wanted the same thing for himself, but thankfully clowned himself out of that ever being possible. He should be kissing his diety's feet that his antics didn't put him in an orange jumpsuit.

        But back to Putin, it was very obvious from the start that Putin's "president for life" decree was going to end up very badly for millions of people. All we could do was wait for the other shoe t

  • Being able to speak the local language seems like a definite requirement, a coder you can't communicate with isn't worth a lot. I guess you could team up with a group of Russians with one or two translators and get by.

    • These days, pretty much all intellectual workers around the world speak English.

    • Probably not as bad as you think. Most these countries learn some English. The self selection for learning more based in career path. Most good programmatic resources will be largely in English, as the internatonal language... So maybe the guy who does IT has a small familiarity but the coder can generally manage it and any speciality like AI, even better.

  • So, Russia Godwins Ukraine. Ukraine goes all French Underground. Scientists look at each other and Godwin Russia?

    Damn. I think the internet is caught in a loop. Extra goto 10 line?

  • Such a lucrative business like as Ransomware being completely cut off from the rest of the world. What else could these hard working IT professionals do for a living? Obviously moving their business outside of Russian control is the answer if you want to stay in business. At least this way Putin doesn't get a cut of the proceeds. No need to pay the protection tax.

  • This is almost non news as the smarter people see how insane he is and they know to GTFO.

    The rot started long before the unjust invasion of Ukraine, and some of the pictures of Russia of recent years I've seen are downright scary. A bunch of narcassist, unimaginitive old fossils run the country as if it's still the 20th century.

    Either choke to death from the dust flaking off of these crusty old bastards who do everything to ensure their own people have no real future or move on.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close