 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You so sure about that? I would think most Filipinos would want to invest back in the Philippines, once they have the money to do so.
Remittances are a form of investment into the economy, no matter how you shape it.
As for the resources to support the population, the resources are there, the jobs aren't. Travel overseas is more an opportunity to find the opportunities that are not available in the Philippines. |
Believe me, I'm sure of it; I'm here working for the US Embassy which, along with the Asian Development Bank, probably has the best data going on this.
The average Filipino working abroad is not making enough money to send back an investment or savings surplus. Filipino overseas workers are, overwhelmingly, low skilled workers in low-end jobs: domestics in Hong Kong, factory workers in Taiwan, hookers -- I mean, "entertainers" -- in Japan. They're generally sending money back to support entire extended families. That's one sub-par paycheck for anywhere from 5 to 20+ people. Savings? Not bloody likely. And forget about investment in the national infrastucture; there's nothing to tax, and so nothing to invest.
quote:
Actually, I would submit that the host country doesn't like remittances, because that is a net outflow of capital, and would rather have all that money stay
home. By regulating immigration, the host countries can establish barriers in favour of their domestics. The problem is that the countries that are the most restrictive, still need the workers to come from somewhere, and the domestic population will not supply their shortage, particularly in Japan. |
The US and Japan could not care less about the piddling outflow of remittances to the Philippines. Their new, restrictive policies are about controlling immigration, not controlling monetary flow.
quote:
Any developing economy, because that is what the Phiippines are, needs to have the foreign investment. It doesn't matter whether the investment comes from Filipinos abroad or from others, so long as that investment originates from jobs outside the Philippines. In cutting off the foreign investment, the developed countries are trying to choke off the developing countries, and are attacking the Philippines. |
Yes. Investment. Foreign investment is an investment in the country, in its infrastructure and in its daily economic life. Sending pitiful wages back so that Dad and uncle Gigi can split an extra bottle of San Miguel beer every day is not foreign investment. Dad and Uncle Gigi are never going to receive enough to spend that money on foreign goods and services (Heineken, a meal at McDonald's, a stay at the Hyatt), so the remittances don't provide any incentive for foreign investment. What they provide in a disincentive for the government to do anything about teh pitiful state of its own economy because, as long as the remittances are coming in, mass starvation is kept at bay (just barely) and thus the place doesn't explode.
But the Philippines isn't, in the end, a developing economy. It's a devolving economy. About 40 years ago -- within my lifetime -- it was the richest country in Asia, with only Japan rivalling its GDP. 30 years ago it was poorer, but still on par with Hong Kong. 15 years ago it was poorer still, but still up their with Thailand. Today teh Phillipines and Indonesia are about to pass each other going in opposite directions; give it 15-20 years, and we'll be talking about the Philippines in teh same breath as Cambodia and Laos.
Has any country ever fallen so far, so fast, in the absence of war or cataclysmic natural disaster? And why? Scarce resources and scarce work, because there are too damned many people here. This is the wrong place to be preaching that family planning is a sin.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Do you have any concept of the history of English industrial development? The peasants left the fields and went into the cities because of higher wages promised in the cities due to industrialization.
|
Why were wages higher in the cities? There wasn't much work for labourers due to the consolidation of land under the enclosure act, plus it was more profitable for the owners to herd sheep than keep tenents.
So between struggling to survive, on less land, and less work, or going to the cities and finding some employment?
quote:
The enclosure movement did indeed lead to peasants leaving to the cities, but many stayed on as tenant farmers until the promise of high wages in the factories lured them to the city.
|
High wages being relative. Enclosure didn't happen all at once, but as more of a percentage of the fields became enclosed, fewer and fewer farm labourers were needed to till the land. These labourers who may have stayed, ended up in the cities.
quote:
Yeah, shiploads! So many that each man has access to THREE CONDOMS A YEAR! You think they only have sex 3 times a year, Ben?
|
It would be more than some. Again, my point. If you have a choice between shipping water or condoms, why are we shipping condoms?
quote:
You mean like in Western Europe
|
I don't see your HIV rate declining, even with the widespread use of condoms. Your birth rate dropped, but that's about it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Believe me, I'm sure of it; I'm here working for the US Embassy which, along with the Asian Development Bank, probably has the best data going on this.
|
Cool, then I can learn more about the Filipino economy.
quote:
The average Filipino working abroad is not making enough money to send back an investment or savings surplus. Filipino overseas workers are, overwhelmingly, low skilled workers in low-end jobs: domestics in Hong Kong, factory workers in Taiwan, hookers -- I mean, "entertainers" -- in Japan. They're generally sending money back to support entire extended families. That's one sub-par paycheck for anywhere from 5 to 20+ people. Savings? Not bloody likely. And forget about investment in the national infrastucture; there's nothing to tax, and so nothing to invest.
|
I'm looking at the numbers that Lancer has been showing me about how much it costs to keep someone for a month in the Philippines.
Now, given minimum wage here, and say 40 hours a week, one Filipino can earn roughly 1200 CDN a month. Two married Filipinos can double this, and this is just with minimum wage.
So say, we have 2400$ CDN a month.
Now, if it costs 100 month to support someone in the Philippines, how many people could they potentially support on their paycheque, assuming they live off half their earnings?
12 people.
Now, 1200 mth isn't much for two people, but they can get by on this, assuming they share an apartment, and take the bus to work, etc. It's certainly more than I give myself to live off of.
quote:
The US and Japan could not care less about the piddling outflow of remittances to the Philippines. Their new, restrictive policies are about controlling immigration, not controlling monetary flow.
|
What's the total amount of the remittances from Canada to the Philippines a year?
quote:
Yes. Investment. Foreign investment is an investment in the country, in its infrastructure and in its daily economic life. Sending pitiful wages back so that Dad and uncle Gigi can split an extra bottle of San Miguel beer every day is not foreign investment. Dad and Uncle Gigi are never going to receive enough to spend that money on foreign goods and services (Heineken, a meal at McDonald's, a stay at the Hyatt), so the remittances don't provide any incentive for foreign investment. What they provide in a disincentive for the government to do anything about teh pitiful state of its own economy because, as long as the remittances are coming in, mass starvation is kept at bay (just barely) and thus the place doesn't explode.
|
Well, you can't say this unless we start tallying up the numbers, and accounting for the differences in the costs of living back in the Philippines.
quote:
But the Philippines isn't, in the end, a developing economy. It's a devolving economy. About 40 years ago -- within my lifetime -- it was the richest country in Asia, with only Japan rivalling its GDP. 30 years ago it was poorer, but still on par with Hong Kong. 15 years ago it was poorer still, but still up their with Thailand. Today teh Phillipines and Indonesia are about to pass each other going in opposite directions; give it 15-20 years, and we'll be talking about the Philippines in teh same breath as Cambodia and Laos.
|
Okay, what were the figures 40 years ago in terms of GDP? Has it been that the Philippines have declined, or that others have supassed them?
Your argument lacks the hard numbers to come to any conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2005 14:47
.
|