Bangladesh migrants, the citizens of no man's land

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
But i have already given you the market analysis- the cost of employing the robots/superwiser combo is 50% cheaper than cost of employing a fully manual labour(inclusive of all the cost of development, production, maintainance)

SO Now, tell me will such robots be beneficial or detrimental to the economy!
No, you just made up some numbers so that your argument can hold water. Sorry, not into all that. As I said, water will find its own level.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
No, you just made up some numbers so that your argument can hold water. Sorry, not into all that. As I said, water will find its own level.
I made up the numbers because it was a hypothetical question. :)

Now answer my hypothetical question, on whether it will be beneficial or not to the economy
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
But i have already given you the market analysis- the cost of employing the robots/superwiser combo is 50% cheaper than cost of employing a fully manual labour(inclusive of all the cost of development, production, maintainance)

SO Now, tell me will such robots be beneficial or detrimental to the economy!
This is similar to computerization of banking in the 90s. Jobs were replaced. But eventually it had a benign effect on the economy since things happened with far greater efficiency, far greater profitability and far greater speed.

Assuming that these robots will result in far greater efficiency, profitability, productivity and speed, it is good.

And then, the people who have been rendered jobless will have to find newer jobs - retraining, moving up the value chain, etc.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
This is similar to computerization of banking in the 90s. Jobs were replaced. But eventually it had a benign effect on the economy since things happened with far greater efficiency, far greater profitability and far greater speed.

Assuming that these robots will result in far greater efficiency, profitability, productivity and speed, it is good.

And then, the people who have been rendered jobless will have to find newer jobs - retraining, moving up the value chain, etc.
Yes, that was the answer I was hoping for :D

So replace the robots with immigrants. Why would immigrants would be bad for the country if they cost cheaper in labor and can hold their own without smooching off from the society?. Pls note that this "not smooching off the society" part is very important!

As, you said, if the people displaced by the robots will be made to find newer jobs which would better suit them and hence ultimately it would be better for the society, people, whose jobs are displaced by the immigrants would have the same effect as that of the robots, no?
 
Last edited:

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
Yes, that was the answer I was hoping for :D

So replace the robots with immigrants. Why would immigrants would be bad for the country if they cost cheaper in labor and can hold their own without smooching off from the society?. Pls not that this "not smooching off the society" part is very important!

As, you said, if the people displaced by the robots will be made to find newer jobs which would better suit them and hence ultimately it would be better for the society, people, whose jobs are displaced by the immigrants would have the same effect as that of the robots, no?
Unskilled immigrants are bad for the country because, our first responsibility lies towards our countrymen. Our 600 million rural coolies. They are the ones who need to move up the value chain. They are the ones who need to be absorbed into our industrial clusters and smart cities and logistics organizations.

If an immigrant from SL or BD or Yemen lands up in Bangalore and takes up a job as my driver, a villager from Kanakapura who should otherwise have migrated to the city and worked as my driver, will no longer get that chance. He will continue to rot in the village, our agricultural sector will continue to remain shoddy and overstaffed.

After 15 years, the immigrant's son will move up the value chain - he will become a bank clerk, his father will go into comfortable retirement. The villager from Kanakapura will be struggling for medicine, and his son will continue in his father's profession, doing rural coolie work.

And our agricultural sector will still employ 55% of Indian population, and contribute 18% to GDP. or maybe even less, because the GDP has grown now, and immigrants have cornered the benefits of the GDP growth.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Unskilled immigrants are bad for the country because, our first responsibility lies towards our countrymen. Our 600 million rural coolies. They are the ones who need to move up the value chain. They are the ones who need to be absorbed into our industrial clusters and smart cities and logistics organizations.

If an immigrant from SL or BD or Yemen lands up in Bangalore and takes up a job as my driver, a villager from Kanakapura who should otherwise have migrated to the city and worked as my driver, will no longer get that chance. He will continue to rot in the village, our agricultural sector will continue to remain shoddy and overstaffed.

After 15 years, the immigrant's son will move up the value chain - he will become a bank clerk, his father will go into comfortable retirement. The villager from Kanakapura will be struggling for medicine, and his son will continue in his father's profession, doing rural coolie work.

And our agricultural sector will still employ 55% of Indian population, and contribute 18% to GDP. or maybe even less, because the GDP has grown now, and immigrants have cornered the benefits of the GDP growth.
So by your reasoning, mechanisation which causes lowering of jobs is good but immigrants causing lowering of jobs is bad?

In both cases, there is apparant lowering of no. of jobs. So how is the first one good and the second one bad?
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
So by your reasoning, mechanisation which causes lowering of jobs is good but immigrants causing lowering of jobs is bad?

In both cases, there is apparant lowering of no. of jobs. So how is the first one good and the second one bad?
Simple.

First of all, immigrants cannot be compared to mechanization because mechanization, computerization, etc. cause massive increase in efficiency, productivity and speed. Unachievable by humans. That is a different level altogether. Immigrants make sense in any context, only if they are either much much cheaper, or much much more efficient. In the Indian context of unskilled labour, neither of these is realistic. Not happening. A Bangladeshi coolie may be *somewhat* marginally cheaper than a coolie from Bihar, but his "productivity, speed and efficiency" will be the same as the Bihari. So, left to market forces, immigration for unskilled labour in India won't even take place.

But here's the real deal:

If a computer (a "machine", as you put it) is doing a certain job (invoicing and accounts and calculations), it cannot be replaced by a human, because it will reduce efficiency, speed and productivity of the economy. Replacement makes no sense here. If an immigrant is doing a certain job, he can, and should be replaced by another Indian human being who can definitely achieve the same efficiency, speed and productivity.

Bottomline: unless you have a race of superhuman immigrants (some magic potion type of thing, a la Asterix comics) who are hundreds of times more productive and efficient than Indians in unskilled labour, who can do things like lifting 100 kg load of bricks and race to the 10th floor and back 50 times a day - it makes no sense to have immigrants replace Indians.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Yes, that was the answer I was hoping for :D
I know. You ask a question, and you expect an answer that you want to hear.

As I have said before, water will find its own level. If we have a free market, mechanization or robotization will happen only to that extent that it is economically viable. Beyond that, it won't happen.

Again, I am not going to speculate on your made up numbers.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Simple.

First of all, immigrants cannot be compared to mechanization because mechanization, computerization, etc. cause massive increase in efficiency, productivity and speed. Unachievable by humans.
OK, so what? "small" increase in efficiency is better than No increase in efficiency right?
That is a different level altogether. Immigrants make sense in any context, only if they are either much much cheaper, or much much more efficient. In the Indian context of unskilled labour, neither of these is realistic. Not happening. A Bangladeshi coolie may be *somewhat* marginally cheaper than a coolie from Bihar, but his "productivity, speed and efficiency" will be the same as the Bihari.
Thats not true at all. Even a 10% reduction in price is still a 10% improvement in efficiency. The very drop in production cost, due to lower labor cost would constitute as a better off position than otherwise without immigrants and so that better off would still translate as 10% improvement in efficiency. While granted immigrants wont increase the efficiency as much as the computers, they DO increase the efficiency in their own way, albiet at a lower level. Hence, immigrants dont actually cause anything bad to the economy!

So, left to market forces, immigration for unskilled labour in India won't even take place.
Not true. We already have immigration from BD dont we? Why? Because we are better off economically than them and that is enough for them to migrate!

To give an example, for years, Nepalis have immigrated here and have worked as gurkhas for us. Will you claim that they robbed few Indians of becoming watchmen and that they caused our poverty?
But here's the real deal:

If a computer (a "machine", as you put it) is doing a certain job (invoicing and accounts and calculations), it cannot be replaced by a human, because it will reduce efficiency, speed and productivity of the economy. Replacement makes no sense here. If an immigrant is doing a certain job, he can, and should be replaced by another Indian human being who can definitely achieve the same efficiency, speed and productivity.
Come on. Who were doing the jobs before the invention of the computers and machines? Humans only no? So if we remove them, logically it will increase the no of jobs? So can we solve our unemployment by getting rid of powerloom and forcing every one to become handloomers?

Again, you are thinking on all or nothing basis- machines are good because they increase efficiency very well, but immigrations though cheaper dont cause very significant increase in efficiency. You are discounting the small decrease in the labour cost and hence the associated increase in efficiency without any reason at all!


Some increase in efficiency is better than no efficiency at all!

Bottomline: unless you have a race of superhuman immigrants (some magic potion type of thing, a la Asterix comics) who are hundreds of times more productive and efficient than Indians in unskilled labour, who can do things like lifting 100 kg load of bricks and race to the 10th floor and back 50 times a day - it makes no sense to have immigrants replace Indians.
Again, you missing the context with which I asked the question.I never said anything about efficiency inherent to the robots. To be fair, anything which reduces the cost of production should automatically mean an increase in efficiency! You discover a new method of growing crops which lower your cost of agriculture by 50%, then your new method is more efficient that your old one. Anyway, to get the analogy clearer, here is how you equate ->

1. Robots+10 Indians cost only 50% of the 100 Indians working for the "Same work",

2. 90 immigrants+ 10 Indians costing only 50% of all 100 Indians doing the "same work"(.ie immigrants being paid half the wage the average Indian gets paid)

In both cases , the no. of missing missing jobs is 90 Indian jobs. So How is 1 good and 2 bad?

You can change your answer on robots now if you want :)
 
Last edited:

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
And @Mad Indian, if you look at it, he is saying the same thing that I am, but is wording it very differently.

When he says that "water will find its own level", it means that in reality, based on market conditions, there is no place for a Bangladeshi labourer to replace a Bihari labourer in India. There is no productivity difference, there is a minimal wage difference (if at all). An Indian labourer can go to the USA and displace American workers, because there are massive wage differences. American workers will then have to retrain themselves in higher skilled jobs and "move up the value chain".

But in India, given the level of economic development we are in, it will be decades before we run out of labour pool. Peri-urban migrants from Bihar, UP, etc. are taking up jobs across the country today. Then it will be rural Indians at the bottom of the pyramid from all states. Then it will be tribals, people at the periphery of society.

Look at the way the job market has evolved. A government job, 9 to 5, was the preserve of the educated middle class in India. Today, most of the offspring of those people have moved on to become engineers, doctors, CAs, etc. The government officer jobs are being taken up by those whose parents were clerks or low-level staffers. When they move on, the descendants of today's drivers will take up those jobs. Then, descendants of today's labourers. And so on - eventually the 4th generation descendants of the adivasis of today will take up government officer jobs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
I know. You ask a question, and you expect an answer that you want to hear.

As I have said before, water will find its own level. If we have a free market, mechanization or robotization will happen only to that extent that it is economically viable. Beyond that, it won't happen.

Again, I am not going to speculate on your made up numbers.
For Bangalorean, my data was enough to come to his conclusion, but for you it is not. Anyway, if you are interested in knowing why I think immigration is better, answer my hypothetical question. I dont think I can debate in a normal way of rebuttals in this matter since it will be like fighting against a mountain of bias.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
For Bangalorean, my data was enough to come to his conclusion, but for you it is not. Anyway, if you are interested in knowing why I think immigration is better, answer my hypothetical question. I dont think I can debate in a normal way of rebuttals in this matter since it will be like fighting against a mountain of bias.
Look, if I present a hypothesis, I can get anyone to say yes. Likewise, if I preset a hypothesis, I can get anyone to say no.

Let's say, hypothetically, the Sun rises from the west. Then, answer my question, does the Sun rise from the west? Answer my question, I say. :p
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
And @Mad Indian, if you look at it, he is saying the same thing that I am, but is wording it very differently.
I am saying the same thing too- water will find its own level. If a migrant replaces the job of an Indian, he will find a more suitable job for himself

When he says that "water will find its own level", it means that in reality, based on market conditions, there is no place for a Bangladeshi labourer to replace a Bihari labourer in India. There is no productivity difference, there is a minimal wage difference (if at all). An Indian labourer can go to the USA and displace American workers, because there are massive wage differences. American workers will then have to retrain themselves in higher skilled jobs and "move up the value chain".
Again, if immigrant worker comes at a 90% cheaper price than Indian one, how is that not a increase in productivity? You gain two things here- a laborer who is 90% cheap for the same job(the immigrant) and the indian worker who is now free for doing other work!(this is the point many dont seem to see)

You are essentially getting a free worker unit, if you are familiar with strategy games:p

But in India, given the level of economic development we are in, it will be decades before we run out of labour pool. Peri-urban migrants from Bihar, UP, etc. are taking up jobs across the country today. Then it will be rural Indians at the bottom of the pyramid from all states. Then it will be tribals, people at the periphery of society.

This is a big misconception that India has massive unemployment when that is not really the case! In TN, there is acute shortage of manual labor. almost 80% of the manual work here is done by Biharis/UP in cities and towns, because TN does not have have enough tamil manual labors(in other words, the TN workers expect more pay). Does it mean, TN would be better off if it closes its borders for Biharis?Thats ludacris. It will not make things better for TN, it will make it worse, by driving up the production cost of many things! The same is true regarding immigration of BDs

Look at the way the job market has evolved. A government job, 9 to 5, was the preserve of the educated middle class in India. Today, most of the offspring of those people have moved on to become engineers, doctors, CAs, etc. The government officer jobs are being taken up by those whose parents were clerks or low-level staffers. When they move on, the descendants of today's drivers will take up those jobs. Then, descendants of today's labourers. And so on - eventually the 4th generation descendants of the adivasis of today will take up government officer jobs.
So what about high end jobs? If doctors and engineers(80% of Indian engineers are supposedly unemployed) are allowed to immigrate to India, would it mean its bad for the country too?

Also, please answer this quote:
Again, you missing the context with which I asked the question.I never said anything about efficiency inherent to the robots. To be fair, anything which reduces the cost of production should automatically mean an increase in efficiency! You discover a new method of growing crops which lower your cost of agriculture by 50%, then your new method is more efficient that your old one. Anyway, to get the analogy clearer, here is how you equate ->

1. Robots+10 Indians cost only 50% of the 100 Indians working for the "Same work",

2. 90 immigrants+ 10 Indians costing only 50% of all 100 Indians doing the "same work"(.ie immigrants being paid half the wage the average Indian gets paid)

In both cases , the no. of missing missing jobs is 90 Indian jobs. So How is 1 good and 2 bad?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Look, if I present a hypothesis, I can get anyone to say yes. Likewise, if I preset a hypothesis, I can get anyone to say no.

Let's say, hypothetically, the Sun rises from the west. Then, answer my question, does the Sun rise from the west? Answer my question, I say. :p
Yes? I guess.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
And @Bangalorean you underestimate India ! An average worker from Bihar expects only 70% of the wage of a TN manual laborer. So if the BDs are willing to work for for lesser wages than the Bihari, then it means that he is willing to work for about 60 of the wage of TN worker. This 40% reduction in cost is not increase in efficiency?

Also, I hope you are aware of the "Dependancy ratio" ? So, a nation invests its resources into building him into a man for twenty years and so in a way, that man is dependant on the society for his growth. He is consuming resources from the society , growing up! Then the man goes onto work after growing up and earns and now, he is working for the society and so he is contributing more than what he is consuming from the society. Later in life during old age, he cant work anymore and so he becomes a dependant on the society through pensions(private or govt)?. So the no. of people who are "growing up" and "are old" are actively consuming resources from the society and the man who is in working years is contributing to the society?

The Dependancy ratio is the no. of working people to the no. of dependant people(children growing up and elderly?) and a favorable dependancy ratio is one where there are more people on the working side than on the dependant side?

You are familiar with it yes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Look at the way the job market has evolved. A government job, 9 to 5, was the preserve of the educated middle class in India. Today, most of the offspring of those people have moved on to become engineers, doctors, CAs, etc. The government officer jobs are being taken up by those whose parents were clerks or low-level staffers. When they move on, the descendants of today's drivers will take up those jobs. Then, descendants of today's labourers. And so on - eventually the 4th generation descendants of the adivasis of today will take up government officer jobs.
And did you notice that you are talking about social mobility? Its not economic development you are talking about but rather social mobility, .ie movement of one family to a higher level. How is immigration going to affect that, and least of all, how is low skilled immigration going to affect that?

Economic development on the other hand is completely different. It is just the increased availability of goods and services to the citizens of the country today than what it was yesterday

To give an example, lets take a family of three generations A, B, and C, who are all respectively grandfather, father and son.

1. Now if A, B and C are all carpentors by profession, then they are not socially mobile. They have not moved on from a lower middle class/low class job to a higher status. BUT, if A earned only 100 rupees a month and could only afford his basic life needs, B earns rupees 1000 a month and can afford some luxuries along with his life needs and C earns rupees 10000 rupees per month and owns a car and what not, then B has improved economically over than A and C has improved economically better than B. SO here we have economic developement but we "may not" social mobility wrt to this family(.ie the carpentors are still considered lower middle class job even during the time of C).

2. but, if A is a carpentor, B is an office clerk, and C is a doctor, then we have a socially mobile family, which has moved from lower/lower middle class to middle class and then finally upper middle class.

The two are different. Why do you say unskilled immigrants cause problems with social mobility? Its illogical. By defn, they are the lowest in the labor order and hence would not be in any position to upset any social mobility. I mean, a low skilled immigrant is not going to stop a carpentor's son from becoming a clerk, if he is going to take up a carpentors job!

Atleast, if you claim that immigration of higher skilled workers like Doctors and engineers into India will lead to stopping of social mobility- it will make sense in context(though I dont agree with that either). For example, my parents(both doctors) were son and daughter of farmers. So if two doctors were immgrated here, they would have made life more difficult for my parents due to them stealing the job of my parents as claimed by the anti-immigration argument?? So should not the higher skilled labor cause more problems for social mobility by your logic?

Correct me if I have misunderstood your position

@pmaitra
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
And did you notice that you are talking about social mobility? Its not economic development you are talking about but rather social mobility, .ie movement of one family to a higher level. How is immigration going to affect that, and least of all, how is low skilled immigration going to affect that?

Economic development on the other hand is completely different. It is just the increased availability of goods and services to the citizens of the country today than what it was yesterday

To give an example, lets take a family of three generations A, B, and C, who are all respectively grandfather, father and son.

1. Now if A, B and C are all carpentors by profession, then they are not socially mobile. They have not moved on from a lower middle class/low class job to a higher status. BUT, if A earned only 100 rupees a month and could only afford his basic life needs, B earns rupees 1000 a month and can afford some luxuries along with his life needs and C earns rupees 10000 rupees per month and owns a car and what not, then B has improved economically over than A and C has improved economically better than B. SO here we have economic developement but we "may not" social mobility wrt to this family(.ie the carpentors are still considered lower middle class job even during the time of C).

2. but, if A is a carpentor, B is an office clerk, and C is a doctor, then we have a socially mobile family, which has moved from lower/lower middle class to middle class and then finally upper middle class.

The two are different. Why do you say unskilled immigrants cause problems with social mobility? Its illogical. By defn, they are the lowest in the labor order and hence would not be in any position to upset any social mobility. I mean, a low skilled immigrant is not going to stop a carpentor's son from becoming a clerk, if he is going to take up a carpentors job!

Atleast, if you claim that immigration of higher skilled workers like Doctors and engineers into India will lead to stopping of social mobility- it will make sense in context(though I dont agree with that either). For example, my parents(both doctors) were son and daughter of farmers. So if two doctors were immgrated here, they would have made life more difficult for my parents due to them stealing the job of my parents as claimed by the anti-immigration argument?? So should not the higher skilled labor cause more problems for social mobility by your logic?

Correct me if I have misunderstood your position

@pmaitra
It is carpenter, but I think I understand what you are saying.

Now, obviously, carpenter->clerk->doctor situation is better than carpenter->carpenter->carpenter situation.

How does that, in the wildest way, support your position that unskilled labourers will not cause problems with social mobility?

Have you considered this situation?
A is a carpenter and makes Rs. 100. B is a carpenter, but manages to make Rs. 90, because there has been an influx of low-skilled immigrants. C is a carpenter, and manages a meagre Rs. 81, because the market has been flooded with plenty of low-skilled labourers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top