Categories
Liberty Society

[1454] Of get the state out of marriage institution

Should the state stop meddling in marriage institution?

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments. [Taking Marriage Private. Coontz, Stephanie. New York Times. November 25 2007]

Though the article is written with the US society in mind, the idea is applicable in Malaysia too. Plus, the act of shooing the state out of marriage institution may be one of many methods to dismantle Malaysian moral police.

Categories
Humor Society

[1449] Of Happy Thanksgiving

I ate my turkey at Subway. Sad, huh?

Anyway, for fun reading:

At my friend’s house, a mansion with an army of Iraqi cooks, gardeners and security guards, the Iraqi staff gathered in the kitchen to watch the ajanib cook Ali Sheesh. All men, they lounged against the counter, chain-smoking.

”You will never cook Ali Sheesh in time,” said the tallest, with amused condescension. ”You must cut him up. Otherwise he will not cook before midnight!”

His friends nodded, laughing. They offered other instructions: We should sauté Ali Sheesh first; we should season him with sabaa baharat, seven spices, and layer him in a large pan; we should boil him and add rice. We had no idea what we were doing: we would poison the guests!

Finally my friend had had enough of their mockery. ”How do you know how to cook a turkey?” she demanded.

The ringleader drew himself up, looking down at us, offended. ”I have seen it,” he said, with finality, ”on ”˜Mr. Bean’!” [Baghdad Thanksgiving, 2003. NYT. November 22 2007]

Ali Sheesh is turkey, in Iraqi Arabic.

Categories
Economics Society

[1448] Of before you shut the door, wait

Kuala Lumpur is full of aliens, legal or otherwise. In the recent weeks, there has been a strong call from those in power to reduce dependency on foreign laborers. Xenophobes only happy to jump onto the bandwagon that appeals to protectionism and central planning. This is indeed not the first time xenophobes have spoken out their mind.

The Malaysian economy is highly dependent on foreign labor. The fact that 41% of construction sector workforce is made up of foreigner stresses the importance foreign workers to our economy. Estimate has it that there are 2.6 million foreign workers in the country, or approximately 10% of total population of Malaysia.[1]

There are a few reasons for that and one of them as well as the simplest explanation is cost. Under the same labor and environmental requirements, foreign labors are willing to work for less compared to the locals; of course, foreign labor here refers to mostly low-level talents who privy not to higher education. Given the cost, it makes absolute sense to hire foreigners instead of locals. If the locals are willing to match the wages of foreigners, I am sure the composition of workers in the industries such as construction that demand low-level talents will tip in favor of the locals.

It is true that influx of foreign labors Malaysia depresses wages, assuming demand for labor does not increase, under typical situation. Without these foreigners, wages would be higher and closer to the level that matches locals’ preference. Yet, I would argue, industries which experience such wages depression are those that the locals are uninterested to participate in. On top of that, if it had not been for the increased labor supply, cost of construction will be higher and thus, an obstacle to economic development. Besides, Malaysian workforce on average is more educated than most of these foreigners. Stretching the line of reasoning further, the availability of foreign labors free up local resources — local human capital — for other more productive, higher talent intensive industries.[2] Indeed, it is a high time for Malaysia to move from manufacturing to services, up the value chain. For this reason, Malaysia needs to pay special attention to its education system.

Another possible reason for such a high requirement for foreign labor is shortage of workers. Despite the discussion of high unemployment among college graduates, Malaysia has a low unemployment rate; for the second quarter, the rate stood at 3.4%.[3] Not all of the unemployed, especially college graduate with degree in IT, mass communication, engineering or any other sexy courses would even think of toiling under the merciless sun welding steel, smoothing out the cement surface in effort to build yet another skyscraper to fill the sky of Malaysia, or roofs for most of us to live under.

If the number of unemployed graduate is not enough to explain the 3.4% rate, do not forgot frictional unemployment, those leave their jobs voluntarily for another jobs, which may be better. How many of you have heard a friend said he was in between jobs? That is frictional unemployment. And then, there is cyclical unemployment, which rises and drops according to seasons. In other words, quantity-wise, the number of workers and the availability of jobs may match or more than demanded but talent-wise, there is likely a shortage in the market.

This economic preference for foreign labors over local ones have prompted allegation that these foreigners are stealing jobs from the locals. On the contrary, nobody is stealing anything from anybody. It is simply something called competition and there will be winners as well as losers in a competition. These laborers are sometimes just thankful to escape the kind of poverty that persists in certain countries like Bangladesh or Myanmar. Their determination to escape poverty drives them to work hard. In all fairness, they should at least be rewarded with employment opportunity. I am willing to go farther to say that the locals, me included, which are used to hand outs, have a thing or two to learn from these foreigners. They may reach our shore in rags, looked down upon, but they have the drive that many of us — whom unashamedly demand for subsidy year in year out, as if it is our god-given right — do not.

Objectors to the use, or some may contend as excessive use, of foreign labor, have alleged that the presence of foreign laborers increase the probability of crime. They insist that most crimes are committed by foreigners. This is far from the truth and in fact, it is the locals that contribute to the level of crime rate we Malaysians currently experience.

Others have proposed expanding the use of robotics to reduce dependency on foreign labor. Alas, without doubt, labor cost, at least for low level talents, is much lower than the capital cost associated with robotics. The use of such capital-intensive resources is only justified when the cost of labor is high; high labor cost is associated with high level of education.

One argument against the use of foreign labor however may stand up. It concerns clash of culture. For this reason, it is wise to not allow a sudden influx of immigrants into a community. The locals need time to accommodate their expectation and to build trust while the foreigners need time to learn local culture. Nevertheless, with the expected closer integration among ASEAN member states — relatively freer flow of capital and labor — a good foreign labor policy will be the one that encourages liberal local attitude towards foreigners, expounding the fact that these foreigners are as much as human as you and I, Malaysians.

The sooner we get use to ASEAN’s Schengen area, the easier we Malaysians could integrate with the rest of the people of Southeast Asia.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Malaysia is home to an estimated 2.6 million legal and illegal foreign workers. They are critical to the nation’s valuable manufacturing and agriculture sectors, and many householders rely on foreign domestic workers. [Malaysian law to curb foreign workers, illegal immigration. AFP via Google News. November 12 2007]

[2] — Kindly compare my rationale to that of the Prime Minister’s:

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 9 (Bernama) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today asked employers to stop the “craze” to hire foreign workers as the move will not contribute to human capital development but will instead have a negative impact on the nation.

He said hiring of foreign workers, be it legally or illegally, would not help to upgrade the technology in the country as the foreigners recruited are not highly skilled and have low productivity. [Stop The Craze To Hire Foreign Workers, Abdullah Tells Employers. Bernama. Retrieved November 9 2007]

[3] Key statistics. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. Retrieved November 21 2007.

Categories
Economics Society

[1440] Of pre-arranged marriage may hurt the labor market

Even during these days, they are those that advocates arranged marriage. The idea is obsolete and belongs to the stone age for so many reasons and therefore, there are many reasons and more to frown at arranged marriage. The Marginal Revolution stumbled upon one reason why hands of parents are inferior to marriage arranged by the invincible hand, specific to India:

“Arranged” marriages, characterized by strong parental control over mate choice, are the norm in India, although there is a steady transition towards autonomous ”love” marriages, especially within the urban middle class. I construct a novel dataset by surveying 6,030 parents and adult children in Mumbai, India, to study selection into arranged marriage and its effects on spouse choice. I consider the choice between an arranged and a love marriage as the outcome of bargaining between parents and children, when agents have different preferences for spouse attributes. I find that stronger financial and kinship ties between parents and sons increase the likelihood of an arranged marriage. Furthermore, when parents are involved in mate choice, sons are significantly less likely to marry college-educated women and women engaged in the labor force, after controlling for individual and family characteristics. I show that these effects are driven, at least in part, by parental preferences and cannot be entirely attributed to correlation between arranged marriages and unobserved characteristics or preferences. These results suggest that lowering the incentive for parental control in mate choice may improve investments in women’s human capital in India. [Divya Mathur. What’s Love Got To Do With It? Parental Involvement and Spouse Choice in Urban India. November 7 2007]

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[1435] Of it is poverty that matters, not wealth inequality

The issue of wealth redistribution and inequality in wealth can be overly stressed by many in Malaysia. Up goes the Gini coefficient for Malaysia and there goes the alarmists. These alarmists, wealth egalitarians do not quite understand that it is poverty that matters, not wealth inequality.

Individuals are different and different persons follow different paths in their life; that rationalizes the difference in wealth; the difference in wealth is synonymous to difference in outcomes. Egalitarians effectively demand all to achieve the same outcome; the best way to achieve such equality is to force everybody to be the same — uniformity is cherished while difference is scorned upon — or to forcefully redistribute wealth after differences manifest itself in the society. For this, egalitarianism violates liberty. Communism and socialism seek this egalitarianism and in the past, as history has noted, the results were disastrous. Yet, communists and socialists still roam this earth, seemingly ignoring lessons in history.

Despite failure of systems that hold wealth equality close to heart, egalitarianism has been identified by the masses as an idea markedly friendly to the poor while non-egalitarian free market advocates are recognized as the manipulative monsters ever-hostile against the poor. This stereotype is beginning to annoy me especially when egalitarianism is increasingly becoming more about hating the rich than about helping the poor. In 1999, economist Martin Feldstein recognized these people with such thinking as spiteful egalitarians.

Wealth inequality is not necessarily, or usually the problem in a society. There are several factors that contribute to wealth inequality; the sources of inequality must be identified to demonstrate why inequality is not an issue one should be concerned about.

At the very top, those factors can be categorized into two groups: deterministic and non-deterministic factors.

For deterministic factors, for example, it is a case of when one is born into the world. One cannot choose their parents, so to speak. And it is not too rare for one to be born without a limp, or be blind or deaf or endowed with any other unfortunate deformation that later affects one’s ability to wade through this life, which can be beautiful or cruel, at birth. It all comes down to one word: luck. Inequality caused by these factors may justify wealth redistribution under pragmatic terms. I am comfortable to suggest that this inequality is the unfavorable type for it adversely affects opportunities; liberty-conscious affirmative action to overcome inequality caused by deterministic factors is essentially action to create equality in opportunity.

Another cause of inequality is the one determined purely by wit and effort by the human spirit. Inequality arises by this group of factors is a direct consequence of success and failure; of reward and punishment. One of the greatest lessons in economics is that individual responses to incentives. In order to encourage success, reward must be granted to those that succeed while failure is punished; in many instances, lack of reward itself suffices as punishment. For one to be successful, effort is required and for effort to be there, the reward must justify the effort. As long as there are winners and losers; as long as we cherish meritocracy, there will be inequality in outcome. Meritocracy is meaningless amid egalitarianism.

If losers are granted that same reward as granted to the victors in the name of egalitarianism, or for any reason for that matter, the victors would have not the incentive to work to be successful. Equality in outcome, equality in wealth means one gets rewarded regardless of effort, even for no effort at all. If fruits of effort could be plucked without effort, why commit effort at all?

Consider education level; it has been well documented that on average, greater years of education increases income level, given everything else is the same. Consider further two persons of the same gender enjoying the same endowment granted by their parents or some entity but have different attitude or capability to mental prowess. The person (let us call him, or her, E) with the greater mental capability will be able to endure longer years of sitting on in front of desk, in front of a book or a computer, working on theses, enriching his, or her, faculty, compared to another person (person F) whom invests less in education. The end result: E will have greater income that F. In the long run, wealth inequality will exist; what was a scenario wealth equality at the beginning is modified by difference in education which leads to difference in income level and finally, wealth inequality. It is the result of meritocracy.

This pattern could be expanded internationally. Different levels or paths of investment will lead to different levels of income. This differences lead to inequality among countries. Luck does have a role but luck, or in a more respectable term, history, can be overcome with enough will. Where there is a will, there is a way.

For this reason, it is far more helpful to concentrate on fighting poverty rather than dreaming for wealth egalitarianism. To achieve an egalitarian society, it is necessary to slow down growth of all people, waiting for those at the bottom to play catch-up; it brings everybody down instead of raising all boats. More worryingly it is becoming a fad lately among self-proclaimed wealth egalitarians to express clear hostility against the successful in hope of achieving an egalitarian society; they seeks to bring the top down rather than the bottom up.

One need not be spiteful to create a better society. For a better society, poverty fighting is enough; egalitarianism is unhelpful in many cases. We should fight for equality in opportunity, not equality in outcome. If one is really concerned for the poor, one should concentrate on fighting poverty, not on achieving an egalitarian society.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this entry was first published at Bolehland.