Questions & Answers

  • myreplyis.com

    myreplyis.com asked in Families 9th Nov '15:

    Segregation in cities is picking up pace, well to do professionals are driving out poorer families, economic restructuring. Yet the term "segregation" is implied?.

    SALVATORE BABONES replied 11th Nov '15:

    Yes, there really is a "New Segregation" and sociologists are very aware of it. Official segregation by race or religion is being replaced all over the world by class segregation: the physical separation of rich people, managers & professionals, workers, and poor people. This physical separation is occurring in both rich and poor countries. It may not have the power of law, but the power of money is just as strong. And it's not just money: people who don't fit in culturally are being excluded as well through extreme social pressure on them and (especially) their children. The New Segregation is thus also in effect a revival of racial and religious segregation, because in all countries social class is closely related to race and religion. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    View all replies to this question
  • myreplyis.com

    myreplyis.com asked in Social Sciences 19th Dec '13:

    The UN is working on "A Global Asteroid Defense Plan". Why the precautionary move, if Space Forces have been protecting us very well, so far. What is new in our lives to warrant such planning?.

    SALVATORE BABONES replied 16th Jan '14:

    Actually, there is no one protecting us!

    The United Nations has no "Space Forces" and there is no one protecting us from asteroids, though there is an international asteroid monitoring effort.  Monitoring is one thing; protecting is something else entirely.  Only in science fiction movies do we have any way to deflect or blow up an approaching asteroid.  Probably our best defense is simply that the Earth is a big place, mostly ocean and desert, so when a meteor does hit it usually doesn't hit people.  Even a huge meteor strike would be unlikely to harm many people directly, and as for the chance that it might change the climate, well . . . we're already doing that without any help from outer space!

    View all replies to this question
  • Halim U Salfiti

    Halim U Salfiti asked in Executive Management 18th Mar '13:

    Foreign workers versus local labor? How free should the importation of foreign workers be? Is it to countries benefits to limit the importation of foreign workers or open their doors completely to them?

    SALVATORE BABONES replied 25th Apr '13:

    Foreign workers undermine national labor markets

    While the use of foreign workers may be called for in certain special circumstances, in most cases the use of foreign workers leads to serious abuses.  In most cases, foreign workers are brought in explicitly to keep wages low, not to fill a niche skill need.  For example, US farmers make use of Latin American workers and often keep them in slave-like conditions.  Conditions for foreign construction workers in the Persian Gulf region can be just as bad.  In both cases the argument is that domestic workers are not available, but that statement must be qualified: domestic workers are not available who are willing to work under such terrible conditions for such low wages.

    Of course, for companies the use of foreign workers is a win-win situation: they get to use the infrastructure of a rich country while paying the wages of a poor country.  But what's good for companies is not necessarily good for society.  What does the host country get from the presence of abused foreign workers?  Low wages and lost jobs.  What does the labor-exporting country get?  Remittances that we know from research tend to be spent on prestige goods rather than on truly developing the local economy.

    When employers are forced to build infrastucture to support their operations in poor countries, everyone benefits (well, except the employer).  The poor country benefits from better infrastructure and more jobs.  The rich country is not inundated with hundreds of thousands of non-citizens.  Each country can develop in a more sustainable fashion.

    Look at some typical foreign worker situations.  Hong Kong imports thousands of Philippina maids.  This depresses low-end wages in Hong Kong, engenders mass sexual abuse of maids, and tears up families in the Philippines, where many children must grow up without their mothers.  What are the benefits?  Cheap labor for already-rich Hong Kong households and remittances to the Philippines.  Better the Philippines kept its working-age women and found jobs for them at home.

    The UAE imports thousands of construction workers to build buildings for thousands of western and Asian ex-pat professionals.  What do UAE nationals get out of the deal?  Very little.  Emiratis are marginalized within their own country.  Yes, very wealthy Emiratis benefit enormously, but many ordinary Emiratis end up in no-show government positions or on welfare.  Better they worked -- even in construction.

    Even for high-wage skilled professionals the analysis is the same.  Many Indian programmers work in the United States.  Americans bemoan the fact that their children don't want to study mathematics and engineering.  But why should they?  Wages are much lower for engineers in the US than for marketing executives.  Students aren't stupid.  They go into marketing and banking, where wages are not depressed, rather than engineering, where they are.  Cut off the supply of engineers, and India would develop faster (its engineers would stay at home) while American wages rise.

    Of course, there are people who benefit from international labor migration: the employers and the employees.  The employers benefit from access to cheap labor.  The employees benefit because they typically have so few options in their home countries that even an abusive foreign workplace can be attractive.  But these people should not be allowed to benefit to the detriment of society -- and often to the long-term detriment of themselves.

    Labor migration is an end-run around the real challenges of development.  It tears apart families, leads to inherently abusive working relationships, and does nothing to develop either the host or the sending country.  Yes, it's very nice for companies.  But the point of social policy should not be to make employers wealthier.  I have nothing against employers, but of all the people who need government's help, employers of foreign workers are not top of the list.

    Some people will say that not allowing foreign workers in will lead to companies moving offshore to poorer countries.  To that I say: good.  The movement of capital from richer to poorer countries is a good thing that reflects a well-functioning world-economy.  Yes, it can be painful.  But if the cost of keeping a company on-shore is that no one from the host country gets a job anyway, and on top of that wages in related industries are also depressed, I don't see the point.  Move production off-shore.

    In the end, the question (as so many questions) comes down to: what is the social good?  The individual good of foreign workers for employers is easy to see.  The social harm is more diffuse.  I am certain that the social harm far outweighs the individual good.  I admit that this is difficult to demonstrate, but I affirm that it is very clearly the case.

    Should companies refrain from hiring foreign workers?  No.  Companies should seek to make a profit.  But governments should prohibit this practice, or better make it so expensive that only those jobs for which foreign workers are truly necessary are filled by foreign workers.  For example, a doubling of the employer-paid social insurance taxes for foreign versus domestic workers would ensure that companies only fill positions with foreigners when absolutely necessary.

    We should not vilify corporations for doing what we legally permit them to do. But we should change the legal environment to make it very costly to import foreign workers.  Incentives are the key.  Economic incentive structures should always favor pro-social behaviors.  When they do, everybody wins -- well, except for the poor employer, who must now pay socially reasonable wages!

    View all replies to this question
Reset my details