a. driving down the domestic wage (the case of US immigration law debate, not so long ago)Okay, you may say, in the end, it is all about fear of competition.
b. local customer protection against low services provided by foreigners
c. cream-skimming and creating inequity
d. crowding out the domestic worker's employment.
But after reading a short article in The Jakarta Post 13/07/06 (alas, no link) on Malaysia's recent policy to lift the ban on Bangladeshi workers, you may want to add up one more reason. But let me quote part of the article first:
Malaysia restricted the number of Bangladeshi workers in the country in 1996 and banned them entirely two years ago, after it said they were creating social problems by entering into romantic liasions with local women.Yes, it is love and good looks that prevent a country from gaining profit from international trade in services.
Officials have said the Bangladeshis, who looked like Indian movie stars to some local women, had seduced and eloped with them.
For me, it doesn't sound right for two things: First of all, it undermines fair competition both in labor market and, more importantly, love market. Second, it implies that foreign workers with good looks actually don't have as big an opportunity as those who are less fortunate in that area.
Talk about male chauvinist pigs. Come off it. Let the competition go on
Addendum:
A self-reflection on our profession, for university teacher, does looks matter? Yes, it does for having higher instructional rating, as Hamermesh and Parker (in pdf) say (via Greg Mankiw's blog), particularly, alas, for male teacher. Yet whether it reflects productivity gap or discrimination is probably impossible to judge. Gosh, somehow I feel relieved by this caveat.
p/s: From that paper, I like a punchline from supermodel Linda Evangelista: It was God who made me so beautiful. If I weren't, then I'd be a teacher. Yes, yes, we call it division of labour. It'd be more efficient this way.
economics of beauty | labor
