'We need slaves to build monuments'

[FireGarden]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/08/middleeast.construction

[...] Hamidullah earns around 450 dirhams (£70) a month as a construction worker.

How is life, I ask.

"What life? We have no life here. We are prisoners. We wake up at five, arrive to work at seven and are back at the camp at nine in the evening, day in and day out."

[...] Not for the first time, I am told that while the immigrant workers are living in appalling conditions, they would be even worse off back home - as if poverty in one place can justify exploitation in the other.

"We need slaves," my friend says. "We need slaves to build monuments. Look who built the pyramids - they were slaves."

[Morrigan]

Actually, the pyramids were not built by slaves...

[KingMerv00]

Why do we need monuments?

[dudalb]

Why do we need monuments?


They are great Tourist Attractions.

[OneShotKi11]

Thats strange.

I have a friend who just visited me in NY from Dubai this past weekend. He was telling me how cheap everything over there is, and how i should move out there to get a job.
He was telling me how the Jobs out there are great and how alot of them take care of your housing for you.

Strange that this article would portray the exact opposite...

[gtc]

Thats strange.

I have a friend who just visited me in NY from Dubai this past weekend. He was telling me how cheap everything over there is, and how i should move out there to get a job.
He was telling me how the Jobs out there are great and how alot of them take care of your housing for you.

Strange that this article would portray the exact opposite...

From what I can gather, things are very different depending on whether you are a white collar or blue collar worker.

[FireGarden]

From what I can gather, things are very different depending on whether you are a white collar or blue collar worker.

That's the impression I got from the article.
There's some racism, too, against the people employed in the cheapest jobs.

[Smackety]

Here (http://www.justlanded.com/english/Dubai/Tools/Just-Landed-Guide/Money/Cost-of-Living) they say that utilities can cost 1000-2000 AED a month. 450 does not sound like enough to live on - why would someone work for that little?

[gtc]

They live in barracks and I am not sure that many of them realise what they are getting into when they sign up to work there.

[Professor Yaffle]

Here (http://www.justlanded.com/english/Dubai/Tools/Just-Landed-Guide/Money/Cost-of-Living) they say that utilities can cost 1000-2000 AED a month. 450 does not sound like enough to live on - why would someone work for that little?

Did you read the article? They work there primarily because they were lied to about the conditions etc and now have no money to return home (and have their passports withheld until they have repaid the "fees" they had to shell out to get there).

[Smackety]

Did you read the article? They work there primarily because they were lied to about the conditions etc and now have no money to return home (and have their passports withheld until they have repaid the "fees" they had to shell out to get there).

They agreed to work for only twice that - 900/month, which still is not enough to even pay basic utilities...

[Professor Yaffle]

And you think they knew the cost of utilities before they signed up? Anyway as gct already said they live in simple shared barracks, so the cost of utilities you quoted is unlikely to apply to them.

[Smackety]

I don't know if they knew the cost of utilities, but they had to have some idea of what 900 AED was worth, right? Is the alternative starvation in their home country?

[Beerina]

[...] Not for the first time, I am told that while the immigrant workers are living in appalling conditions, they would be even worse off back home - as if poverty in one place can justify exploitation in the other.

Actually, that's exactly how it works.

That's how capitalism raises up the average living standards far faster than socialism and other "nice to the hoi polloi" plans do.

What's "exploitation" to your jaded, spoiled worldview is a fantastic opportunity to someone who grew up on a dirt floor.

"Friend" to those "exploited" ones? Hell, no. You want to sentence them back to their original poverty. Yes, you, Mr. Guardian writer.


The fraudulent choice you offer is between this "exploitation" and...what? Something better than their original poverty? No. You do not, and cannot offer that by "magical thinking". "It will just happen."

No, that doesn't work for psychics or UFOs or bending spoons or making your favorite sports team win by wishing in just the right way. And the magical thinking won't work here, either.

[FireGarden]

"Friend" to those "exploited" ones? Hell, no. You want to sentence them back to their original poverty. Yes, you, Mr. Guardian writer.

The fraudulent choice you offer is between this "exploitation" and...what?

How about, at the very least, what the workers were promised when they were recruited?

They were promised double the wages they are actually getting, plus plane tickets to visit their families once a year, but none of the men in the room had actually read their contract. Only two of them knew how to read.

"They lied to us," a worker with a long beard says. "They told us lies to bring us here. Some of us sold their land; others took big loans to come and work here."

And what's your view on unions? Should they be illegal?

[Pardalis]

I know a few people who went to Dubai, and I got the same comments, they were appalled at the workers conditions there, how they don't have any unions and regulations, and yet they build like mad. Most hotels over there are out of price and they don't even know if they'll even get clients once their building is done, and yet they keep building and building. And when the building fails to be profitable, instead of using it for other things they just take it down and build anew.

It's the architects' paradise though, the next building is more outrageous than the one before.

[Smackety]

How about, at the very least, what the workers were promised when they were recruited?

Would the conditions be less slavery-like if they were? Who lied to them anyway - the job agencies in their home countries or the Dubai contractors?


And what's your view on unions? Should they be illegal?

They should be legal - but how would a labor union help? What good does the UFW (United Farm Workers) do anymore?

[FireGarden]

Would the conditions be less slavery-like if they were?

One of the things they were promised was a ticket home every year. If they return to work having experienced what it is like then, yes... It would look less like slavery*.

Who lied to them anyway - the job agencies in their home countries or the Dubai contractors?

I don't know.

They should be legal - but how would a labor union help? What good does the UFW (United Farm Workers) do anymore?

A large number of people, united in demanding change, is harder to ignore.

*ETA: not that I'm calling it slavery. These workers can leave, but it will cost them if they do:

The company that sponsors them holds on to their passports - and often a month or two of their wages to make sure that they keep working.

I just call it exploitation. The slavery comparison is a quote from the article.

[Smackety]

One of the things they were promised was a ticket home every year. If they return to work having experienced what it is like then, yes... It would look less like slavery.

The article says if they are too sick to work they are sent home after a few days - does this not mean that by simply refusing to work they could go home? I think they do not want to leave because some money is better than no money.


A large number of people, united in demanding change, is harder to ignore.

Do you have an example? Why is the UFW disfunctional?

ETA: Just saw your ETA - your OP and thread title led me to think you saw this as slavery, I think we all agree this is exploitation, Dubai needs a minimum wage law.

[plumjam]

They should be legal - but how would a labor union help? What good does the UFW (United Farm Workers) do anymore?

Crikey, is everyone so brainwashed these days?

[Smackety]

Crikey, is everyone so brainwashed these days?

Got a point?

[Morrigan]

Why do we need monuments?

They are hallmarks of great civilisations, silent witnesses to the future. I understand the economic and logistic reasons of why we do not build them anymore, but it still makes me sad.

[kerikiwi]

They are hallmarks of great civilisations, silent witnesses to the future.

They are only sometimes hallmarks of great civilisations. More often they are hallmarks of things somewhat less admirable.
But, yes, always silent witnesses to the future, if only the future can understand what they witness.

[Smackety]

What does the Statue of Liberty stand witness for?

[quixotecoyote]

ETA: Just saw your ETA - your OP and thread title led me to think you saw this as slavery, I think we all agree this is exploitation, Dubai needs a minimum wage law.


Based on the OP I think better regulation and enforcement of contract law would be a better place to start.

[The Painter]

What does the Statue of Liberty stand witness for?

Oh wait, it's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, is it in the name? Is it Liberty?

[Smackety]

Based on the OP I think better regulation and enforcement of contract law would be a better place to start.

possibly - though it is not clear that any of the workers actually have contracts.

[FireGarden]

As I understood it, the verbal contracts were different to the papers they signed. Many of the workers can't read.

[Smackety]

Oh wait, it's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, is it in the name? Is it Liberty?

way to miss the point there :eusa_drool:

[Smackety]

As I understood it, the verbal contracts were different to the papers they signed. Many of the workers can't read.

It might be possible to enforce verbal contracts, though I am not sure who they would sue - and might not stop similar exploitation in the future. It sucks that these people are not helped out by their own country, since Dubai does not seem to have much in the way of a bill of rights.
Cannot these people go to their embassy and get some help?

[Smackety]

Hey -- we should let these people go to the US embassy and use their lawyers!

[Wildy]

Oh wait, it's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, is it in the name? Is it Liberty?

Oh? I thought it represented the US being willing to exploit immigrants.

[The Painter]

Oh? I thought it represented the US being willing to exploit immigrants.


No, that's not it. That did happen, but that's not what it represents. A lot of immigrants saw it on their way to Ellis Island, but no it does not represent exploitation, and it was not made by slaves, which would have been the quintessential example of irony.

[Beerina]

How about, at the very least, what the workers were promised when they were recruited?

Certainly. The employers should be held to their end of the contract.



And what's your view on unions? Should they be illegal?

No free agreement between free people should be illegal.

[GreyICE]

Actually, that's exactly how it works.

That's how capitalism raises up the average living standards far faster than socialism and other "nice to the hoi polloi" plans do.

What's "exploitation" to your jaded, spoiled worldview is a fantastic opportunity to someone who grew up on a dirt floor.

"Friend" to those "exploited" ones? Hell, no. You want to sentence them back to their original poverty. Yes, you, Mr. Guardian writer.


The fraudulent choice you offer is between this "exploitation" and...what? Something better than their original poverty? No. You do not, and cannot offer that by "magical thinking". "It will just happen."

No, that doesn't work for psychics or UFOs or bending spoons or making your favorite sports team win by wishing in just the right way. And the magical thinking won't work here, either.
I love your Rand model of unrestrained capitalism. I can totally see how this isn't exploitation and is actually just the free market at work:
Outside the "free zones", where the rules are looser, no one can start a business in the UAE without a partner from the emirates, who often does nothing apart from lending his name. No one can get a work permit without a local sponsor.
Please tell me more about this randroid paradise!

Do you think you might be piloting your ship with ideological blinders on?

[Beerina]

I love your Rand model of unrestrained capitalism. I can totally see how this isn't exploitation and is actually just the free market at work:

It's called reality, my friend. The fraudulent choice offered by kibbitzers is between this and some miraculous fantasy world where people living on dirt floors are somehow magically issued a house in the suburbs and a car and a lawn mower.

The actual choice in actual reality is this...or nothing. End of story. So sayeth not me, but reality.





Please tell me more about this randroid paradise!

You're typing on part of it. Thx for asking. Please tell me more about this socialist fantasy world where people on dirt floors stop living on dirt floors faster because of massive regulation.

Hint: Whapping producers with a stick because they aren't living up to some power hungry politician's public vote-oriented narrative generates less economic uplift than dangling carrots in front of starving people.

Thank god there were no aliens around when England and the US lifted themselves up off the dirt floors, telling them they must hextuple wages and respect the environment.

Do you think you might be piloting your ship with ideological blinders on?

I look at it the way scientists look at, say, medicine. Two massive groups, one with a placebo, one without. Wait a few years. Which has a better outcome?

Hypothesis: Two massive economic groups on dirt floors. One with mandates to provide huge wages that make ivory tower people happy, the other without.

Wait a few decades. Which has the better outcome?



I'm confident of that theory. It is the basic outline of the West the past 200 years. Last century had hundreds of economic "experiments" that confirmed the general concept.


I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Unlike you, I guess (er, hypothesize), I am willing to be proven wrong. However, evidence, as mentioned above, does not seem to be against me.

Do you have any evidence mandating significantly higher wages will help them out more. Don't say "Henry Ford", you're not allowed to use a result of capitalism to defend socialism.

[GreyICE]

It's called reality, my friend. The fraudulent choice offered by kibbitzers is between this and some miraculous fantasy world where people living on dirt floors are somehow magically issued a house in the suburbs and a car and a lawn mower.

The actual choice in actual reality is this...or nothing. End of story. So sayeth not me, but reality. Yet hilariously, Europe keeps rolling on doing better (higher per capita income, better medical care, etc.) than us, acting nothing like this. Japan, a highly protected domestic market, is completely failing to live up to the 'nothing' part of this equation you are promising.

The real world does not match your statement. When people provide me with statements that are not supported by what is occurring in the real world, I refer to this as woo. Your philosophy is woo philosophy - it is not based on what reality is showing us, but what your ideology tells you that reality should be showing us. Just like the homeopath's ideology tells them that their homeopathy should be curing people.

Provide real world data, or accept that you are offering a homeopathic cure for the problem.
You're typing on part of it. Thx for asking. Please tell me more about this socialist fantasy world where people on dirt floors stop living on dirt floors faster because of massive regulation.

Hint: Whapping producers with a stick because they aren't living up to some power hungry politician's public vote-oriented narrative generates less economic uplift than dangling carrots in front of starving people.
Welcome to the fallacy of false dichotomy. Population: the above.

Thank god there were no aliens around when England and the US lifted themselves up off the dirt floors, telling them they must hextuple wages and respect the environment. I do wish I knew what you were talking about. If you're talking about the industrial revolution, I submit you have not the least little idea of what you are referring to.
I look at it the way scientists look at, say, medicine. Two massive groups, one with a placebo, one without. Wait a few years. Which has a better outcome? Here's a hint: You have the placebo. Any data? Take a country that removes minimum wage. Show me the better standard of living for the population. Take a country that implements all these Randroid proposals. Show it getting better for the people living there.


Hypothesis: Two massive economic groups on dirt floors. One with mandates to provide huge wages that make ivory tower people happy, the other without.

Wait a few decades. Which has the better outcome?

I'm confident of that theory. It is the basic outline of the West the past 200 years. Last century had hundreds of economic "experiments" that confirmed the general concept. Oh, so you can cite them! Nice firm data showing that a completely deregulated economy is better than an economy with a sensible amount of regulation and control.

I can cite the opposite, circa 1920s America...


I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Unlike you, I guess (er, hypothesize), I am willing to be proven wrong. However, evidence, as mentioned above, does not seem to be against me. You haven't provided any...

Do you have any evidence mandating significantly higher wages will help them out more. Don't say "Henry Ford", you're not allowed to use a result of capitalism to defend socialism.
Study: No negative effects from minimum wage law (http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2006/05/01/daily39.html)

http://www.cbpp.org/529ormw.htm


* The average starting wage of Oregon parents leaving welfare fell five percent, adjusting for inflation, during the three years prior to the January 1997 increase in the state minimum wage.

* This trend reversed itself immediately after the increase. The average starting wage jumped from $6.15 an hour in the last quarter before the 1997 minimum wage increase took effect to $6.43 an hour in the first quarter following the increase. By the fourth quarter of 1997, the average starting wage had reached $6.65 an hour, an increase of more than five percent, adjusting for inflation, over the same quarter of the prior year.

...

This analysis also examines whether the increase in Oregon's minimum wage had a negative overall effect on employment opportunities of welfare recipients. While no systematic study of this issue has been conducted, the available evidence does not suggest a negative change in employment opportunities. The share of welfare recipients finding work rose modestly in 1997 following the increase in the minimum wage. In addition, employment growth in retail trade, the industry most likely to be affected by a minimum wage increase, was positive in 1997 and followed the same pattern as overall employment growth in Oregon. Both overall employment and retail employment rose in 1997, although at a somewhat slower rate than in 1996. The change in employment growth between 1996 and 1997 reflects a modest general slowdown in the state's rate of economic growth, not the increase in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increase had reduced job growth significantly, it is likely that the trend in retail trade employment would have been significantly worse than the trend in overall employment.


And since you're going to throw employment at me:

Minimum wage increases may have less of an effect on employment than previously thought
(http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/8951.html)



You have no facts, you have no data, you have never even looked to see if it was there, or you wouldn't have handed me a hurdle that was so very easy to jump over. You assumed that your philosophy was right without even considering the evidence.