Singapore and Hong Kong never embarked on Guest Worker programs at those scales and most of the guest workers were fellow Han ethnics and very skilled foreigners. They build up their populations high value skills and allowed a relatively broad degree of political participation compared to the UAE.
Singapore has universal suffrage and free and fair elections. Most of residents have full rights. The PAP's dominance owes mostly to its being very fucking good at governing and Han solidarity.
Even its rightless guest workers (especially those actually living in Singapore and not on ships) are mostly Han co-ethnics from Malaysia/Mainland. It's a somewhat exhaustible resource (as China gets richer and Malaysia gets drained of Chinese, they can't keep importing friendly co-ethnics that are just glad to be there).
If you go on the Singapore government websites you'll find the following:
1) non-citizens are a minority of the populace
2) most non citizens are high/mid skill workers that have minimum income requirements at some above average wage rate for each job category
3) most non-citizens are Han co-ethnics. a lot of the rest are high skilled foreigners.
4) the low skill segment is disproportionately in the shipping industry. they are either living on the ships or temporarily in port. they are technically "Singapore workers", but they aren't really living there on anything resembling a permanent basis.
5) A lot of the domestics are Chinese mainlanders
Keeping 88% of your society as rightless foreigners is a powder keg waiting to explode, especially if you demand more of your citizens talents then luxury resorts paid for with oil money.
A majority of its non-citizens are Permanent Residents, Employment Pass, S-pass, and various student and family passes.
There are roughly 300,000 MDW (migrant domestic workers) and 450,000 CMP (Construction, Shipping, and Process). That is 5% and 7.5% of the population respectively.
While the MDW are likely to be living in Singapore, we don't really know about the CMP. A significant number of them work in shipping where they can be on the ships. For instance, when a barge crashed into and collapsed the Francis Scot Key bridge in Baltimore recently it was Singapore flagged and full of migrant workers.
As to the ethnicity of foreign workers it is not broken down by work permit. However, the overall foreign worker origin country is listed for 2020 when there were 2.5M foreign workers.
The largest, 1.1M is Malaysia. According to Malaysia these are overwhelmingly Chinese Malay emigrants, which makes sense given where the Chinese community is located near Singapore, Singapore being a majority Chinese state, and the Malaysian government discriminating against Chinese Malaysians.
The next biggest is mainland China with 500k. Combining these two we are already well over 50% of the foreign workforce being Chinese.
The next four combined are poor countries, about half from the Indian sub continent, and make up close to the amount from mainland china. Many of the Indians are actually high skill workers. Then there is the UK at 60k, the largest of a number of foreign white countries no doubt supplying high end labor.
So yes, a majority of guest workers are Chinese. And yes, the number gets even higher if we include whites and high skill Indians.
So we've got 12.5% of the population being low skill guest workers, many of them the same as the dominant ethnic group, and all prime working age with no dependents and in good health. This is a smaller portion of the population then African Americans in America.
> The majority, by far, are from Indonesia and the Philippines; smaller numbers come from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, India, Thailand, and Bangladesh. We do not have definite figures, but there seems to have been quite an increase in the number of Myanmar workers since 2006.
I guess I will have to take their word for it. They are an NGO hawking migrant rights and trying to call the whole thing racist. They admit, "We do not have definite figures".
Neither do I as far as the ethnic breakdown of each work permit is concerned. I only know the overall number for all guest workers is heavily Chinese and I once watched a documentary that mentioned foreign domestic workers in Singapore and seem to recall them saying that a lot of the domestic workers were women from mainland China.
Anyway, the overall point is that there is a big gap between what Singapore is doing and wha the UAE is doing.
Well, with your last point you have completely shifted your argument - is what UAE is doing a great thing for them or is it not?
Re: Singapore, my question wasn’t what they do now, it was what they did near the beginning.
Now all that said, I accept your point that similar ethnicity does make things easier.
I also agree that having massively higher percent like 88% being guest workers is not a long term recipe for success for most countries.
But I am with Bryan that this is indeed evidence that very large “guest worker” programs with limited welfare benefits are a win-win for most developed countries. I agree with you it’d probably be better to limit that to, say, 20%-25% of the residents of a country.
Couple that with near unlimited high-skill immigration, and perhaps some additional legal immigration (perhaps those guest workers who prove particularly productive being at the head of the line…) and you’ve got the makings of a sensible sane, win-win immigration policy, wouldn’t you say?
"is what UAE is doing a great thing for them or is it not?"
I think it's good for them but risky for the UAE. However, if I was the UAE dictator (bunch of oil and no domestic talent to speak of) I'd roll the dice, don't have much of a choice.
They probably could spend the money in a more productive manner then ostentatious luxury though, a lot of this is going to be boondoggles.
The developed world is not in the same situation.
"But I am with Bryan that this is indeed evidence that very large “guest worker” programs with limited welfare benefits are a win-win for most developed countries."
No, because the developed countries can't limit welfare or voting rights. It's been tried and failed. Go look up Prop 187 in California.
The Gulf States could do it because of oil, their relatively small size, and their unique political history. Singapore can do it for similar reasons, though even there its harder (because their economy requires more then pumping oil or building ski resorts).
P.S. I listed the numbers for Singapore in a reply to another above.
The commenter you are arguing with is bullshitting about Singapore. Points 3, 4 and 5 are definitely wrong.
And point 0, that you can find this information on the Gahmen's website is mostly wrong, too. I say only mostly, because you might find some information about point 1. But the Gahmen here is unlikely to write anything about point 3 and 5 (neither to confirm nor deny): they don't really want to publish officials breakdowns of ethnicity nor religion.
It worked out extremely well for the USofA. - Though Dubai will (mostly) disappear in the sand when the oil is gone. Bahrain (first oil pump in the region, mostly depleted today) is already back to backwater (only place in the region where you can buy lots of booze in a shop) . Saudia's post-petrol-age future: similar; nowadays large source of investments into the UAE. Qatar: Probably a tiny bit over UAE in share of foreigners (ca. 90%), there are more Nepalesi than Qatari in Qatar! "As of 2024, the largest expatriate community is Indian, constituting 21.80% of the population, approximately 700,000 people. Bangladesh and Nepal contribute significantly, each making up 12.50%, equivalent to 400,000 individuals.") and as delusional as Saudia: "Qatar is actively pursuing its Qatarization initiative, aiming to increase the employment of Qatari citizens in both public and private sectors. The target is to achieve 50% representation of Qatari citizens in the core sectors."
And how did "open borders" affect those places before they found ways to export oil and (liquified) gas? As unattractive as legally open Spitzbergen/Svalbard is today.
All that said, I do agree with all of Caplan`s statements. Fun fact: thousands of nurses from Philippines work in Saudia (under less than ideal conditions) for a few hundred $ a months. All would pack this evening to swap their jobs there to work in US/UK/Germany for US/UK/German pay.
Oil production accounts for less than 1% of Dubai's current GDP. They managed to take the money they made before, when it was 50%, and they actually quite successfully diversified their economy.
The UAE as a whole only earns 17% of its revenue from oil and gas*. For a native population of about 10% with a sizable sovereign fund, if oil were to disappear, the only people who would be significantly affected in the long run would be blue collar workers in certain sectors.
And Bahrain is not "back to backwater". They're still experiencing solid economic growth
Any idea how this might have worked out without their oil wells? Or how it might work out in places that don't have that type of advantage?
“Or how it might work out in places that don't have that type of advantage?“
Worked pretty darn well in Singapore.
And Hong Kong.
Singapore and Hong Kong never embarked on Guest Worker programs at those scales and most of the guest workers were fellow Han ethnics and very skilled foreigners. They build up their populations high value skills and allowed a relatively broad degree of political participation compared to the UAE.
What exactly is your definition of political participation? Especially in Singapore.
Singapore has universal suffrage and free and fair elections. Most of residents have full rights. The PAP's dominance owes mostly to its being very fucking good at governing and Han solidarity.
Even its rightless guest workers (especially those actually living in Singapore and not on ships) are mostly Han co-ethnics from Malaysia/Mainland. It's a somewhat exhaustible resource (as China gets richer and Malaysia gets drained of Chinese, they can't keep importing friendly co-ethnics that are just glad to be there).
Where do we have rightless guest workers?
There's a few guestworkers from China, and a few ethnically Chinese people from Malaysia etc.
But most of our eg construction workers are from Bangladesh and India etc, and most of the maids ain't Chinese.
What's the basis for your claim that most guest workers are Han? Or only the mythical 'rightless' guest worker?
Ok. But was there universal suffrage for immigrants and guest workers 40-50 years ago? What proportion of guest workers have there been?
If you go on the Singapore government websites you'll find the following:
1) non-citizens are a minority of the populace
2) most non citizens are high/mid skill workers that have minimum income requirements at some above average wage rate for each job category
3) most non-citizens are Han co-ethnics. a lot of the rest are high skilled foreigners.
4) the low skill segment is disproportionately in the shipping industry. they are either living on the ships or temporarily in port. they are technically "Singapore workers", but they aren't really living there on anything resembling a permanent basis.
5) A lot of the domestics are Chinese mainlanders
Keeping 88% of your society as rightless foreigners is a powder keg waiting to explode, especially if you demand more of your citizens talents then luxury resorts paid for with oil money.
Bullshit!
Please tell me where on the Gahmen's website it tells you anything about the ethnic make up of our guestworkers, yet alone that they are majority Han?
Points 3, 4 and 5 are outright wrong. Can you give any concrete sources?
Why do you make these things up?
Singapore has 6 million residents.
A majority of its non-citizens are Permanent Residents, Employment Pass, S-pass, and various student and family passes.
There are roughly 300,000 MDW (migrant domestic workers) and 450,000 CMP (Construction, Shipping, and Process). That is 5% and 7.5% of the population respectively.
While the MDW are likely to be living in Singapore, we don't really know about the CMP. A significant number of them work in shipping where they can be on the ships. For instance, when a barge crashed into and collapsed the Francis Scot Key bridge in Baltimore recently it was Singapore flagged and full of migrant workers.
As to the ethnicity of foreign workers it is not broken down by work permit. However, the overall foreign worker origin country is listed for 2020 when there were 2.5M foreign workers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Singapore#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20them%20come,between%20Singapore%20and%20these%20countries.
The largest, 1.1M is Malaysia. According to Malaysia these are overwhelmingly Chinese Malay emigrants, which makes sense given where the Chinese community is located near Singapore, Singapore being a majority Chinese state, and the Malaysian government discriminating against Chinese Malaysians.
The next biggest is mainland China with 500k. Combining these two we are already well over 50% of the foreign workforce being Chinese.
The next four combined are poor countries, about half from the Indian sub continent, and make up close to the amount from mainland china. Many of the Indians are actually high skill workers. Then there is the UK at 60k, the largest of a number of foreign white countries no doubt supplying high end labor.
So yes, a majority of guest workers are Chinese. And yes, the number gets even higher if we include whites and high skill Indians.
So we've got 12.5% of the population being low skill guest workers, many of them the same as the dominant ethnic group, and all prime working age with no dependents and in good health. This is a smaller portion of the population then African Americans in America.
Thanks for digging up some sources. You made some of your statements more precise, and those hold up a bit better.
Point 5 is a misleading: yes, some domestic helpers are PRC, but that's a minority. See eg https://research.uwcsea.edu.sg/G8Migration/FDW
> Where do they come from?
> The majority, by far, are from Indonesia and the Philippines; smaller numbers come from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, India, Thailand, and Bangladesh. We do not have definite figures, but there seems to have been quite an increase in the number of Myanmar workers since 2006.
I guess I will have to take their word for it. They are an NGO hawking migrant rights and trying to call the whole thing racist. They admit, "We do not have definite figures".
Neither do I as far as the ethnic breakdown of each work permit is concerned. I only know the overall number for all guest workers is heavily Chinese and I once watched a documentary that mentioned foreign domestic workers in Singapore and seem to recall them saying that a lot of the domestic workers were women from mainland China.
Anyway, the overall point is that there is a big gap between what Singapore is doing and wha the UAE is doing.
Well, with your last point you have completely shifted your argument - is what UAE is doing a great thing for them or is it not?
Re: Singapore, my question wasn’t what they do now, it was what they did near the beginning.
Now all that said, I accept your point that similar ethnicity does make things easier.
I also agree that having massively higher percent like 88% being guest workers is not a long term recipe for success for most countries.
But I am with Bryan that this is indeed evidence that very large “guest worker” programs with limited welfare benefits are a win-win for most developed countries. I agree with you it’d probably be better to limit that to, say, 20%-25% of the residents of a country.
Couple that with near unlimited high-skill immigration, and perhaps some additional legal immigration (perhaps those guest workers who prove particularly productive being at the head of the line…) and you’ve got the makings of a sensible sane, win-win immigration policy, wouldn’t you say?
"is what UAE is doing a great thing for them or is it not?"
I think it's good for them but risky for the UAE. However, if I was the UAE dictator (bunch of oil and no domestic talent to speak of) I'd roll the dice, don't have much of a choice.
They probably could spend the money in a more productive manner then ostentatious luxury though, a lot of this is going to be boondoggles.
The developed world is not in the same situation.
"But I am with Bryan that this is indeed evidence that very large “guest worker” programs with limited welfare benefits are a win-win for most developed countries."
No, because the developed countries can't limit welfare or voting rights. It's been tried and failed. Go look up Prop 187 in California.
The Gulf States could do it because of oil, their relatively small size, and their unique political history. Singapore can do it for similar reasons, though even there its harder (because their economy requires more then pumping oil or building ski resorts).
P.S. I listed the numbers for Singapore in a reply to another above.
The commenter you are arguing with is bullshitting about Singapore. Points 3, 4 and 5 are definitely wrong.
And point 0, that you can find this information on the Gahmen's website is mostly wrong, too. I say only mostly, because you might find some information about point 1. But the Gahmen here is unlikely to write anything about point 3 and 5 (neither to confirm nor deny): they don't really want to publish officials breakdowns of ethnicity nor religion.
It worked out extremely well for the USofA. - Though Dubai will (mostly) disappear in the sand when the oil is gone. Bahrain (first oil pump in the region, mostly depleted today) is already back to backwater (only place in the region where you can buy lots of booze in a shop) . Saudia's post-petrol-age future: similar; nowadays large source of investments into the UAE. Qatar: Probably a tiny bit over UAE in share of foreigners (ca. 90%), there are more Nepalesi than Qatari in Qatar! "As of 2024, the largest expatriate community is Indian, constituting 21.80% of the population, approximately 700,000 people. Bangladesh and Nepal contribute significantly, each making up 12.50%, equivalent to 400,000 individuals.") and as delusional as Saudia: "Qatar is actively pursuing its Qatarization initiative, aiming to increase the employment of Qatari citizens in both public and private sectors. The target is to achieve 50% representation of Qatari citizens in the core sectors."
And how did "open borders" affect those places before they found ways to export oil and (liquified) gas? As unattractive as legally open Spitzbergen/Svalbard is today.
All that said, I do agree with all of Caplan`s statements. Fun fact: thousands of nurses from Philippines work in Saudia (under less than ideal conditions) for a few hundred $ a months. All would pack this evening to swap their jobs there to work in US/UK/Germany for US/UK/German pay.
Oil production accounts for less than 1% of Dubai's current GDP. They managed to take the money they made before, when it was 50%, and they actually quite successfully diversified their economy.
The UAE as a whole only earns 17% of its revenue from oil and gas*. For a native population of about 10% with a sizable sovereign fund, if oil were to disappear, the only people who would be significantly affected in the long run would be blue collar workers in certain sectors.
And Bahrain is not "back to backwater". They're still experiencing solid economic growth
* https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143052/uae-distribution-of-real-gdp-by-sector/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20extractive%20industries,closely%20at%20approximately%2013.6%20perce
I worked 5 years in Saudia and visited Bahrain and its booze shop. I stand by "backwater". Also: bordello.