Does Economics Entrench Cheap Foreign Labor as the Easy Solution to Labor Needs?

One of the lectures the author took at the University of Tokyo makes a great point about the idea of rich countries hiring foreign laborers from poor countries to fulfill supposed shortages in labor. The lecture argues that the supposed shortages are socially constructed, where the mentality of the general populace changes to one of complete dependence after they taste the ease of paying relatively little money to foreigners to do their dirty unwanted jobs. Society has become used to having foreigners fill the very bottom of employment hierarchy.

The reliance on foreign laborers extend from a purely mental issue to an economic one. By framing the dirty menial labor done by foreign workers as socially undesirable, locals basically exclude themselves from possibilities of getting those jobs. To keep these basic functions of society running, a comprehensive system to systematically hire, train, move, and match supplies of foreign laborers to demands of local employers become indispensable. An economic institution becomes embedded to play the role, both in the migrant sending and receiving countries.

The system is certainly beneficial in terms of reducing economic transaction costs. Employers know little about the countries their foreign workers come from, and foreign laborers have never been to countries where they can earn much higher salaries. Middlemen, in the form of brokers and labor agencies, expedite the process while reducing the costs and efforts for employers and workers. If all functions perfectly, employer-worker relations are outsourced to the middlemen, who mediate between two sides to reach compromises that suit both sides.

But of course, economics also ensure that the middlemen are guaranteed to game the system for their own gains. To provide services for mediating the two sides, they make money from both sides. As sole holders of relationships between the sending and receiving countries, they dictate the terms of employment, threatening workers with unemployment and employers with no workers in exchange for exorbitant fees. The middlemen have become not a respected mediator, but blackmailing profiteers hated by all.

Of course, there are different ways to fix the problem of greedy middlemen. Some argue that employers should be responsible for hiring, making middlemen obsolete. Some argue for stricter controls of the middlemen, sniffing out and killing off the "bad" greedy ones and keeping only the good ones. Plenty of visionary government officials and proactive NGO leaders work hard in such direction, seeking greater fairness and more for desperate workers. They are no doubt driven by ideals that can lead to better standards of living for those at the bottom of society.

Yet, but focusing just on the details of how migrant worker systems work, receiving countries ignore the fundamental fact that they have become too dependent on foreign workers in the first place. All assume that as people become richer, they tend to move on from a certain set of jobs that are undesirable. No one questions the fact that such jobs are really undesirable in the first place. To put more specifically, is it possible to get some people in rich countries to continue working in supposedly undesirable jobs even as the society becomes richer?

The argument is certainly not questioning the intake of foreign workers. Instead, it is questioning the very definition of what is an undesirable job. The market should determine wages of laborers based on supply and demand. If no one wants to clean toilets, wages for toilet cleaners will go up until people want to do the job. If wages for toilet cleaners rise high enough to afford a luxurious lifestyle, then is toilet cleaning still an undesirable job in anyway? Would people who do such jobs still be considered dirty and be discriminated against?

NGO leaders sometimes argue that they are fighting for greater dignity of foreign migrant workers. But is dignity just associated with the levels of their salaries? Perhaps the problem lies more about how society perceives the jobs they do. If the "undesirable" nature of certain jobs are socially constructed, there is perhaps possibility to "un-construct" the undesirability. If jobs currently done by exploited migrant workers are seen more positively, not only will their treatment improve, but more local workers will want to do them.