Let's Get them To Work

I’m generally “pro-immigrant.” Growing up in the UK and living in Singapore for the last decade or so, I noticed that it’s usually the migrants from elsewhere doing the backbreaking work and the down and outs are usually the native born. In London’s Soho district, the tramps were inevitably young, white, native Brits. The “Pakis” were too busy running corner shops and the Nigerian black boys would hustle to get you into a mini-cab. Now, that I live in Singapore, I notice that the construction sites are inevitably staffed by Indians and Bangladeshis, restaurants by Pinoys and Indians and our streets would not be clean were it not for the “Bangla’s” picking up after us.

I have argued time and time again that were it not for migrants who are hungry and willing to do shit jobs that need to get done, many of the great cities of the world would probably collapse. I also don’t see the sense in denying the job to the guy who wants to do it because he’s “not from around here.” I also don’t see the logic in denying the guy who wants the job in name of giving the job to the guy who doesn’t want the job in the first place.

Having said that, I also believe that many societies, particularly in the developing world, need to find a way of creating opportunities for their native-born citizens and as much as we want to encourage people to succeed, we also need to take care of the “losers.” Letting people die on the street doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The social order that allows people to prosper can easily be upset if enough people feel their getting screwed by the system.

If only this chap would learn to be like

In the Western world, they have the welfare state, which works on the premise that the state provides you with a safety net in the event that things turn sour for you. The Nordic Countries are the world’s favourite example of what a good social system can do for you. Losing your job or getting sick in Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland isn’t the end of the world because the state will step in.

However, while the intentions behind the welfare state are noble, the system, as many Western Countries have found out, has one intrinsic flaw – the value of work vanishes. Why do you need to go to work if people are giving you money for doing nothing? The system becomes open for abuse and unfortunately the people who should be working find a way of not working. The system becomes even more ridiculous when you have situation where people from elsewhere get the “benefits” without paying into the system. The “anti-migrant” group has moved its pitch from “they take our jobs,” to “they are coming to live off our tax dollars.”

Many Asian countries balk at the thought of implementing a “welfare” system based on the Western model. Singapore, is a good example. Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister and the last great Victorian Gentlemen this side of the Suez Cannel felt that the “welfare” system had turned the British from being the most civilized people on earth into a bunch of hooligans. His successor had to disguise the giving out of cash to the citizens by calling them shares.

While the “evils” of the welfare system are known, Asian societies are reaching the stage where some form of “welfare” system needs to be introduced. The richer Asian nations like Singapore and Japan are aging. Modern life is such that old social contracts are no longer viable (In my mother’s words “Can’t expect you to look after me when you can barely look after yourself.) What can be done? It’s a question that needs to be answered quickly as societies age.

These guys

In Singapore, the answer is called “Workfare,” where the government donated cash to low wage earners. I used to enjoy receiving “workfare” every three months. It was like a surprise package and there was the greater thrill of receiving money from the government.

The idea of workfare is right in as much as it gives one the incentive to work. As a former recipient, I can say that I was encouraged to stay in my job as a waiter because I’d get that buzz of having that “government-given” bonus. Workfare, which is assessed on a quarterly basis, meant that I could get a larger bonus from the government if I stayed in the job.

Generally speaking, I like the principle of the system. There is a possibility of abuse in the system but even then, the it is correct to pay people to work not to do nothing. Our problem in Singapore not so much people abusing the system but not wanting to abuse the system. As one of the characters said, “It’s not worth it for a few bucks.”

I have a sentimental attachment to my job as a waiter because it helped me move things along in life. While, the pay was never great, it gave me the stability of income that I needed to settle a few things.

I’m an unusual case in as much as I’ve grown attached to my blue-collar existence. To me, it was a simple case of a low income being better than no income at all.

However, there remains a portion of society that would rather not work a low paying job and live of friends and family. I think of the various characters I know who don’t have an issue being seen to be drinking all day but can’t afford to be seen in public cleaning the streets.

What do you do? Yes, I am for the principle of hiring the guy who wants the job rather than the guy who doesn’t want the job. However, can we really afford a situation where you have lots of people from elsewhere doing the jobs but a load of natives not earning a living?

I’m reminded of a report that I saw on Facebook, which reported that farmers in the US are having to leave fruit to rot ever since Donald started clamping down on migration. A friend of mine who supports the Donald made some comment about time to get people off welfare.

He has a point. We argue that migration is necessary because we need people to do the dangerous and dirty jobs that the natives won’t do. However, we have natives who are physically able to do the jobs but are unemployed and not earning a living. In the Western World, many of these collect welfare checks and lose the incentive to work. In the Asian Societies they live off family and friends until they no longer have family and friends and in which case they end up on the street. Isn’t it correct that you get the natives working so that there’s less need for migrants?

One of the areas to start is to make dirty and dangerous jobs less so. Technology is a big factor in things. At the restaurant I work at, we’ve adapted wireless payment systems, which reduces manpower costs. Instead of hiring a cashier and plonking paper chits around, we take the order on an iPad, which goes straight to the kitchen and the cashier. Instead of relying on a cashier to key in your orders, you merely print out the bill at the end of the meal.

Paying less than slave wages also helps. There is an argument made in Singapore that wages for certain jobs are too low for support a family (even if KNN and Pundeks don’t support their families). But there is a point in that, you cannot keep wages stagnant while increasing costs. Yes, I’d work a job far away from where I live if I had to but I’d also feel pretty resentful of rising transport costs when compared to my stagnant wages. So, to a certain extent, the employers need to do something to reduce costs for their employees. You could grow competitive mini-bus systems and a “night economy” if employers threw in things like transport.

I also wonder if things like a jobs program would get the down and outs to work? While “jobs programs” don’t have a great history of creating real economic value, they are better than the alternative of nothing at all and giving people money for nothing.

Surely, instead of having to rely on people from elsewhere, a nation should squeeze its productivity from its own citizens first. There are of course, barriers to this. Why, for example, should a city dweller (where a good portion of welfare recipients live) go out to work as a farm hand in the country when the investment in time and money might be a disincentive to work?

This is the point where governments need to get creative and figure out how to work with the private sector to share funds and idea on how to get people into work. Perhaps, a national job bank could be created and anyone who wants to register for social assistance, will have to register at the job bank. Businesses can then draw upon the job bank whenever they need labour, paying costs for employing the worker with the government helping subsidise things like transport to the work place and perhaps training schemes to make people employable.

Just letting people die should not be an alternative but giving people money for not working is not good either. The answer lies in making seasonal work in various labour intensive industries accessible to anyone who needs a job. My stepfather once said that if he couldn’t work as a doctor, he’d work in the harbor rather than take the dole. For me, I keep my job as a waiter because it’s a form of social security. Governments and businesses need to ensure that people will want to work and not take handouts.

As has been pointed out, people with jobs, even low paying ones, tend to have dignity, while those who don’t have jobs, tend not to have it. A dignified population is what most societies should aim for.