Thompson of serving the nation as a half-way house between the fields and the factories. The paradox of migration is that everyone could become better-off -- the rural migrant moving in, the out-migrant to the city and even those who stay and rise in the local hier-archy, due in part to the out-migration of the strong -- the nation, as a simple collection of these parts, would be richer because the allocation of labor would be better, but the locality as a place could be worse-off. Those who rrove into a community do not have to be less educated or poorer than those they join to impoverish a community, merely of lower socio-economic status than those they replace -- the top of the stock that moved out. We do not have to put places ahead of people to recognize that places are environments for people, who may thrive or languish on the basis of rich or poor personal contacts and public sectors. We are probably fortunate, as a nation, that localities can not prevent the in-migrâtion that beggars them, but we err in not providing compensatory payments to these staging areas, not just for the sake of equity in income redistribution but even more to provide incentives to localities to undertake the critical func-tions of education and acculturation less reluctantly and more effectively. The nation should monitor the gross flows of migra-tion at the local level to know better which of its many agents in human resource development are most strategically located: typically and paradoxically,.those communities most impoverished in inter-regional trades in human capital. Can we express national development goals in these localities 27 May 1971

DOI link for Thompson of serving the nation as a half-way house between the fields and the factories. The paradox of migration is that everyone could become better-off -- the rural migrant moving in, the out-migrant to the city and even those who stay and rise in the local hier-archy, due in part to the out-migration of the strong -- the nation, as a simple collection of these parts, would be richer because the allocation of labor would be better, but the locality as a place could be worse-off. Those who rrove into a community do not have to be less educated or poorer than those they join to impoverish a community, merely of lower socio-economic status than those they replace -- the top of the stock that moved out. We do not have to put places ahead of people to recognize that places are environments for people, who may thrive or languish on the basis of rich or poor personal contacts and public sectors. We are probably fortunate, as a nation, that localities can not prevent the in-migrâtion that beggars them, but we err in not providing compensatory payments to these staging areas, not just for the sake of equity in income redistribution but even more to provide incentives to localities to undertake the critical func-tions of education and acculturation less reluctantly and more effectively. The nation should monitor the gross flows of migra-tion at the local level to know better which of its many agents in human resource development are most strategically located: typically and paradoxically,.those communities most impoverished in inter-regional trades in human capital. Can we express national development goals in these localities 27 May 1971

Thompson of serving the nation as a half-way house between the fields and the factories. The paradox of migration is that everyone could become better-off -- the rural migrant moving in, the out-migrant to the city and even those who stay and rise in the local hier-archy, due in part to the out-migration of the strong -- the nation, as a simple collection of these parts, would be richer because the allocation of labor would be better, but the locality as a place could be worse-off. Those who rrove into a community do not have to be less educated or poorer than those they join to impoverish a community, merely of lower socio-economic status than those they replace -- the top of the stock that moved out. We do not have to put places ahead of people to recognize that places are environments for people, who may thrive or languish on the basis of rich or poor personal contacts and public sectors. We are probably fortunate, as a nation, that localities can not prevent the in-migrâtion that beggars them, but we err in not providing compensatory payments to these staging areas, not just for the sake of equity in income redistribution but even more to provide incentives to localities to undertake the critical func-tions of education and acculturation less reluctantly and more effectively. The nation should monitor the gross flows of migra-tion at the local level to know better which of its many agents in human resource development are most strategically located: typically and paradoxically,.those communities most impoverished in inter-regional trades in human capital. Can we express national development goals in these localities 27 May 1971