3 ms·

Paragraph after paragraph restating the question, then: > In short ways, four forces of change – Kerala’s reintegration with the global economy, remittances fr

Paragraph after paragraph restating the question, then: > In short ways, four forces of change – Kerala’s reintegration with the global economy, remittances from the Persian Gulf, strong welfare policies from a legacy of Leftist government, and private investment from individuals and businesses who shared the remittance flows – have combined to form the structure of Kerala’s miracle of human wellbeing with economic growth.

readthenotes1 2y ago
So sending tons of people to be indentured servants in Saudi Arabian was the secret sauce.
- vishalontheline 2y ago
  > sending They went on their own accord. They wouldn't have gone had the opportunity not been large enough. Plenty of people from the West have done the same and continue to do so.
- kridsdale1 2y ago
  Not the same, but slavery tends to be productive for development. (I reference Indian laborers in UAE whose employers confiscate their passports. Yes they are paid, but they are not free or well treated.)
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  > Hundreds of thousands of people migrated to the Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar to work in construction, retail and services, sectors that saw a massive investment boom following the two oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. > The demand for skilled workers increased as the Gulf economies diversified from oil-based jobs to finance and business services. While offering jobs in the millions, the migration also had a series of broad effects back home on occupational diversification, skill accumulation, changing gender roles, consumption, economic and social mobility, and demographic transitions. It looks like there they were employed across the value chain and the peninsula, some (many?) of which I do not think typically practices modern-day slavery.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    I did say indentured servants, not slaves... Thonik not sure what the difference is when the servent can be killed with impunity
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

readthenotes1 2y ago

So sending tons of people to be indentured servants in Saudi Arabian was the secret sauce.

vishalontheline 2y ago
> sending They went on their own accord. They wouldn't have gone had the opportunity not been large enough. Plenty of people from the West have done the same and continue to do so.
kridsdale1 2y ago
Not the same, but slavery tends to be productive for development. (I reference Indian laborers in UAE whose employers confiscate their passports. Yes they are paid, but they are not free or well treated.)
jhanschoo 2y ago
> Hundreds of thousands of people migrated to the Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar to work in construction, retail and services, sectors that saw a massive investment boom following the two oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. > The demand for skilled workers increased as the Gulf economies diversified from oil-based jobs to finance and business services. While offering jobs in the millions, the migration also had a series of broad effects back home on occupational diversification, skill accumulation, changing gender roles, consumption, economic and social mobility, and demographic transitions. It looks like there they were employed across the value chain and the peninsula, some (many?) of which I do not think typically practices modern-day slavery.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I did say indentured servants, not slaves... Thonik not sure what the difference is when the servent can be killed with impunity

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]