often they are the brothers who choose to live the life of a labor slave to repay their parents debts rather than have their sisters sent off as sex slaves.
Provide references for claims such as these please. I would be interested to learn about this and the extent to which it applies.
Looking at your claim at face value I'm left thinking what kind of policies are in force in workers' home countries,
that end up leading them to make the choice to go into what appears to us to be unacceptable work conditions?
Logic tells me that things must be really bad at home for workers to consider Dubai Construction Industry as a desired work alternative.
Down the line, when these workers bring back home more money from overseas than they could have obtained domestically, they
are helping their home economy due to an increased ability to purchase goods that leads to a rise in domestic production
(more domestic jobs) to meet demand.
This money that is being sent back home can exceed all the foreign aid provided by other countries.
In fact because of the above fact and the fact that it doesn't rely on coerced transfer of wealth from taxpayers
of foreign countries to poorer countries it is as viable a solution to global poverty as any other.
Work your way out of poverty, what a concept!
They also helping their kids get a better education thus broadening their future career choices.
I think that indirectly Dubai's construction industry (warts and all) is helping not just Dubai but also the worker's home countries.
Don't misconstrue my post as an apology for Dubai's pathetic labour practices.
I find those disgusting, but I like to take in the big picture.
By the way, the recent drop in incomes for migrant workers is related to the depreciation of the dollar with the dirham
being pegged to it. In other words US economic/foreign policy is part of the problem for these people.
Every worker has the power to strike (even in Dubai).
Dubai's workers there do strike from time to time and can get benefits in return for such action such as pay rises.
Until domestic development gets to quite high levels in certain asian countries, migration for work will remain a vital
component of the national interest of most of those countries.
References for further reading:
http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/3877-sleeping-giant-foreign-workers-dubai
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/05/09/inflation.mme/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22Workers.t.html?ref=magazine
(Quotes are from the link above)
"Tita’s loneliness was costly, too, but she had Emmet’s earnings. With a monthly salary of $500,
he made as much in two years in
Dhahran as he did in two decades in Manila, and he sent two-thirds of it home. Tita bought better food, and she bought Rowena medicine."
"The unpaid work, undertaken in the spirit of community service, brought Tita new confidence. But so perhaps did the modest comforts made possible
by Emmet’s wages.
By now she had a toilet."
"Migration has been a prominent development topic ever since. Of the
$300 billion that migrants sent home last year, about two-thirds came through formal channels like banks, while the rest is thought to have traveled informally, in pockets or cassette tapes. By contrast, the
world spent $104 billion on foreign aid. While the doubling of formal remittances in the past five years partly reflects improved counting, Dilip Ratha argues that most of the gain is real. There are more migrants; their earnings are growing; and plunging transaction fees encourage them to send more money home.
The Philippines, which received $15 billion in formal remittances in 2006, ranked fourth among developing countries behind India ($25 billion), China ($24 billion) and Mexico ($24 billion) — all of which are much larger. In no other sizable country do remittances loom as large as a share of the economy. Remittances make up 3 percent of the G.D.P. in Mexico but 14 percent in the Philippines.
In 22 countries, remittances exceed a tenth of the G.D.P., including Moldova (32 percent), Haiti (23 percent) and Lebanon (22 percent)."
"
Remittances cut the poverty rate by 11 percent in Uganda and 6 percent in Bangladesh, according to studies cited by the World Bank, and raised education levels in El Salvador and the Philippines.
Being private, the money is less susceptible to corruption than foreign aid; it is also better aimed at the needy and “countercyclical” — it rises in response to slumps and natural disasters. By increasing reserves of foreign exchange,
remittances reduce government borrowing costs, saving the Philippines about half a billion dollars in interest each year. While 80 percent of the money sent to Latin America is spent on consumption, that leaves nearly $12 billion for investment. And
consumption among the poor is hardly a bad thing."