[nickpsecurity]

"How is this anything other than a straightforward win/win trade? The country gets work done for cheaper than hiring locals; the migrant workers make more than they could in their home countries."

You could say the same thing about impoverished minorities in the U.S. whose ancestors came from poor countries. It would still be racism to pay them or allow them less due to race. It's more amusing given the Singaporeans that show up in comments talking about how racist America is. Turns out Singapore is pretty racist and classist, too.

[sho]

I don't understand how you are drawing these conclusions. I don't see any similarity at all to U.S. race relations.

If country A has a lot of money but a labour shortage, and country B is poor but has a labour excess, then it is of mutual benefit for country A to hire people from country B to perform needed labour. Country B's workers are not being paid less because of their race, but because they come from a relatively poorer country.

The workers come to do a job in which they will be paid more (much more) than comparable work at home, they do it, they get paid, the work gets done, everyone is happy, they go home. How is this racist, or even generally bad?

This basic economic principle is also, of course, the reason why companies locate manufacturing in countries with large available labour pools and lower comparative wages. So is Apple racist for manufacturing in China?

[nickpsecurity]

"Country B's workers are not being paid less because of their race, but because they come from a relatively poorer country."

Then the discrimination is based on source country instead of race. Either way, it's systematic discrimination. Singapore could just as easily pay based on position and prior experience across the board. Immigrants could move up in pay over time. Those there a certain amount of time could participate in the political process. And so on.

Whereas the current situation is pure exploitation that contradicts some of the morality claims I see in discussions on Singapore. Especially how some in the comments will say they're pro immigrants, not racists, etc.

[sho]

I feel like you are not listening. These are not "immigrants", they are temporary foreign labourers who are flown in to do a job, do it, and leave. It is not "discrimination" that they are paid less - the fact that they are cheaper is the only conceivable reason for hiring them in the first place.

I see you're a security consultant. Here's a thought experiment for you. Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out.

You are paid less than the natives. You are there because you can be paid less. You are benefiting from the trade, and so is Switzerland. You do not get to vote in Swiss elections. Are you being immorally exploited by racist discriminating Swiss? Of course not. It is a win/win situation and a fundamental component of foreign trade.

Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. The world is better off because you were working productively instead of browsing reddit waiting for the phone to ring. This is why trade is good. Your labour was able to move from where it was not necessary, to where it was.

The foreign workers in Singapore are not being paid $100/hr, of course, but otherwise the situation is exactly the same.

Does that make sense?

[nickpsecurity]

I am listening carefully. In most Singapore threads, people show up to mention something about how people of different race or nationality get less rights plus poor treatment in America. This is bad. They mention it seemingly to distract from whatever problems in Singapore are being discussed by some Americans. Then, in same discussion, it's OK that Singapore is doing essentially the same thing with these "temporary, foreign labourers" from impoverished countries who have no rights, get paid less, get abused by a percentage of employers, and so on. My comments are directed at anyone with moral position that America shouldn't have second-class citizens but it's OK for Singapore to build its infrastructure on people who are just short of slaves.

Now, if you're fine with those concepts, then our discussion is entirely different. People fine with this are for unequal treatment of people by law. They're for two people doing same work for two, different paychecks. They're for people getting different political rewards for same effort in same location benefiting same country. If you're for all this, then we can then have the discussion only on specific opportunities at specific dollar amounts since that is all that matters to an amoral, rational capitalist. Let's look at it that way.

"Say you have trouble getting work back home, but you hear that in Switzerland they have a shortage of security consultants and the going rate is $200/hr. You ring up a company there and offer to work - they say well your French isn't quite up to scratch so we can only offer you $100/hr. You say sure, they say OK here's a 6 month contract, you fly in, do the work, and fly out."

Your example is amusing because I can't find work anywhere over here but am skilled enough that someone in a rich country wants to fly me over there. Let's assume it, though. The response of a rational capitalist is to bargain. I point out I have same (or more) skill than what they have on hand. I tell them they have people who can handle the customer interaction then give me specs in English. It's virtually no trouble. I suggest I'm paid for the result I get them. I might take a small, pay cut of around 10% or half now, half on completion of specific items for the uncertainty if I get local recommendations from them after completion. I might also forward the contract to their competitors to let them know I've been talent-scouted from across the seas, see if they want to bid higher, and use any higher bids as leverage on original employer to get me terms at or above offered rate.

What I won't do is take the $100/hr offer because rational capitalists... or utilitarians operating in their environment... who know better. I'd also locally promote in the political scene the concept of high-skill, foreign workers being able to get a track onto citizenship or permanent residency with limited rights. If the process is reliable, the Swiss can brain drain other countries much like U.S. does with its H1-B visa program. I'll remind them that the best workers are already flocking to countries that promise them more in return for their labor because they compete in a global, not local, market.

And the greedy assholes will either turn down the contract or political offer or they'll accept it. That's how that works.

"Economically, wealth has been created. Your home country is better off to the tune of $X when you bring home your fat stack of euros. Switzerland is happy too because it thinks it gained $2X worth of work. "

That's an oversimplification. People in the local country loose jobs and money to immigrants. Other people will benefit from increased productivity by hiring more labor at cheaper rates. This might be low or high quality productivity. The foreign economy will usually lose whoever they invested in who creates ROI for another country. They may or may not bring money back especially if the cost of living is high with low pay (see indentured servitude). The immigrant workers, if not having abusive hosts, may be better off if living conditions improved. This is not a good thing, though, because they were really choosing between the lesser of two evils. It's a less, evil thing that hurts them less. Although, it will be good for some if they end up in good positions. It's like a lottery.

"Does that make sense?"

It does because Americans are educated on this in "US History." Much of our early infrastructure were built by slaves and low-paid immigrants who suffered enormously for benefit of local business owners and white citizens. It's looked back on as our version of the Dark Ages with those big into racism or exploitation still supporting it. It certainly benefited the owners and locals who weren't doing the work, though. The only good thing that came out of it is many generations down the line with democratic work some became real citizens with real rights. It might happen in Switzerland but I doubt a police state in Singapore will tolerate that. ;)