Laos faces dire shortage of workers

[reader]

From Laotian Times

The Laotian Times reported on August 30 that Lao workers are leaving the country in large numbers, searching for employment opportunities abroad amid the skyrocketing cost of living at home.

At the same time, from the manufacturing industry to construction and hospitality, local businesses have reported a dire shortage of labourers, which has affected their operations and post-pandemic recovery.

According to the newspaper, the labour crisis has been caused mainly by workers seeking employment in other countries due to low wages in Laos, which, despite some increases, have failed to keep pace with the continued depreciation of the Lao Kip.

Compounding matters, Lao authorities have even authorised and facilitated workers in pursuing temporary employment abroad in countries such as the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Japan through legal channels and programmes.

To reduce the financial burden of Lao workers, the Lao Prime Minister’s Office has approved raising the minimum monthly wage in the country from 1,300,000 LAK (67 USD) to 1,600,000 LAK (83 USD) starting from October.

 

 

[reader]

To those of us who patronize massage shops. this does not exactly come as a shock.

 

[vinapu]

Laos problem is that unlike other countries they can't count on influx of immigrant labour from poorer countries for simple reason - they are poor country already. It may be attractive to Myanmarese though for being at least peaceful.

[PeterRS]

When we talk about Laos and poverty, we should never forget that the country was all but destroyed by war - an undeclared war by the United States. The 1962 Agreement on the Neutrality of Laos was signed by the USA, the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and 10 other countries. Yet that did not stop the USA from starting a covert undeclared war against the country, a war run by the CIA taking orders not from Congress but from the White House.

In the years from 1964, the USA dropped a planeload of bombs on this poor landlocked country every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years - 580,000 bombing runs. Can any of us imagine what that must have been like? Most of those were cluster bombs of the type now banned by many countries. It is estimated that 30% or 80 million bombs did not explode, but they continue to do so, maiming and killing 20,000 Lao people since the bombing officially ended, many of them children.

Initially, the bombers came from U-Tapao airbase in Thailand which had been leased to the USA. Soon they were coming from aircraft carriers off the coast of Vietnam. The number of planes which failed to drop their full load of bombs on Vietnam could not land on a carrier with bombs on board. So they just flew a few extra miles and dropped them indiscriminately over Laos. Unsurprisingly, Laos became the most bombed nation in history per had of population - with more bombs dropped than during the entirety of WW2. If any nation requires international aid to recover from that absolute disgrace, it is surely Laos.

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

When we talk about Laos and poverty, we should never forget that the country was all but destroyed by war - an undeclared war by the United States.

that's all true and good you reminded that inconvenient truth. Visitors to Patpong Museum can watch short movie about Laos bombings.

But is was 48 years ago and country economic condition now is owed more to governemnt handling it's affairs then to that undeclared war. Ditto Cambodia. 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

But is was 48 years ago and country economic condition now is owed more to governemnt handling it's affairs then to that undeclared war. Ditto Cambodia. 

How on this good earth can you state that with any degree of certainty? You cannot. And I cannot either. Neither of us have lived in countries which were the most bombed in the entire history of warfare or had well over a million of our fellow citizens massacred by our countrymen. During those years, Japan developed from a bombed out shell into what was to become an economic powerhouse. During those years, Japan's exports increaased by an annual 15%. You and I have zero idea how much economic development might have taken place in Laos and Cambodia during the years of the illegal US wars and their horrific results. Nor can we determine how wealthy the countries might now be.

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

How on this good earth can you state that with any degree of certainty? During those years, Japan developed from a bombed out shell into what was to become an economic powerhouse. During those years, Japan's exports increaased by an annual 15%. 

so if Japan could do it in say 20 years other countries can not in 48? Ghana at independence in 1957 had higher GDP per person than South Korea . Is that a case now ? was it even in 1970 ? When Singapore was leaving Malaysia no tears were shed deemed poor cousin is leaving 

It just sheer luck or perhaps better management ?

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 by our countrymen

you mean 'by own countrymen",  right? 

[forrestreid]

34 minutes ago, vinapu said:

you mean 'by own countrymen",  right? 

I think PeterRS is originally British. In fairness, I dont think that Harold Wilson sent too many bombers on raids over Laos in the Sixties.

Unlike Tony Blair, he had the sense to know when to stay out of an American war.

[forrestreid]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

How on this good earth can you state that with any degree of certainty? You cannot. And I cannot either. Neither of us have lived in countries which were the most bombed in the entire history of warfare or had well over a million of our fellow citizens massacred by our countrymen. During those years, Japan developed from a bombed out shell into what was to become an economic powerhouse. During those years, Japan's exports increaased by an annual 15%. You and I have zero idea how much economic development might have taken place in Laos and Cambodia during the years of the illegal US wars and their horrific results. Nor can we determine how wealthy the countries might now be.

In the case of Laos at least, the Pathet Lao campaign between the Fifties and the Seventies would have assured that Laos probably would not have developed much in any event in those years, as it would have been either involved in a Civil War, or ruled by a very ideological Communist dictatorship.

Presumably the Pathet Lao would have taken over a lot earlier if the Americans had not been propping up the Royalist Lao government. So that would have brought forth a Pathet Lao dictatorship by the mid Sixties perhaps, which would have brought peace to the country at least. However, the Pathet Lao were believers in strict Communism in those days, and it is not known for agrarian communist regimes to have ever prompted a strong economic development in any country, so far as I am aware.

South Korea was in a relatively greater state of devastation in 1953 than Laos was in 1975 (admittedly with far less dangerous ordinance lying about in the forests and the fields), but in the 48 years that followed it grew a lot faster than Laos in the 48 years since 1975. 

I cannot state it with "certainty", but I think it is quite likely that the way Laos was governed since 1975 is the main factor in where Laos is today, economically, rather then what the agonies it went through before 1975.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, vinapu said:

 When Singapore was leaving Malaysia no tears were shed deemed poor cousin is leaving 

With respect I think your view of history is incorrect. Malaysia wanted Singapore to stay. It was Lee Kwan Yew who decded to leave.

4 hours ago, vinapu said:

you mean 'by own countrymen",  right? 

No. I wrote and meant "our". Although to be fair you could substitute "our own".

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, forrestreid said:

I think PeterRS is originally British. In fairness, I dont think that Harold Wilson sent too many bombers on raids over Laos in the Sixties.

Unlike Tony Blair, he had the sense to know when to stay out of an American war.

Yes, I am British. Britain's hands were not nearly as 'clean' in the Indo-China wars as stated at the time. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a shifty, duplicitous character who managed to convince the British public that Britain stayed out of the war, but this was a lie. Recently declassified documents show that Britain did indeed play a role in the American illegal war in Laos. But I can find no information that it bombed Laos. It did send intelligence flights over Laos as well as ship war materiel for use by the Amerians from Hong Kong to the illegal secret CIA airbase at Long Chang.

There is even evidence now that Britain did send forces to Vietnam. In a 2022 article in Declassified UK, it is reported that in 1962 Britain's Military Attache in Saigon, Col. Lee, wrote to the War Office in London attaching a report by someone whose name remains censored but who is described as an advisor to the Malayan government. The advisor proposed that an SAS team be sent to Vietnam, which Lee said was unacceptable owing to Britain's position as Co-Chair of the Geneva Agreement. Then Lee added: "However, this recommendation might be possible to implement if the persnnel are detached and given temporary civilian status, or are attached to the American Special Forces in such a manner that their British military identity is lost in the US unit."

In essence, Lee recommended that secret British forces be "grafted on to the American effort in the fleld." This team was sent, and was known as the Noone Mission. The covert operation began in the summer of 1962 but there are only a few further references to it in the available files. One shows that it was still in operation in 1963.

As Rhiannon Vickers wrote in the article Harold Wilson, The British Labour Party, and the War the Vietnam War for the Journal of Cold War Studies, in order to stay in power Wilson had to maintain a very delicate balancing act. While many in his party, including most of the leadership, saw the war in the context of the Cold War, many of his rank-and-file members saw Vietnam (for what it really was) largely a war of national liberation.

Until release of these documents, Wilson was praised for having stayed out of Indo-China whereas Blair has been excoriated (rightly in my view) for his involvement in Iraq. Wilson does not deserve such plaudits in view of the lies he told.

https://declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-role-in-the-brutal-us-war-in-vietnam/#:~:text=The Royal Air Force also,MI6 station heads in Hanoi.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26923428

[vinapu]

47 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

. Wilson does not deserve such plaudits in view of the lies he told.

 

But can't be blamed to current shortage or workers in Laos either

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, forrestreid said:

I cannot state it with "certainty", but I think it is quite likely that the way Laos was governed since 1975 is the main factor in where Laos is today, economically, rather then what the agonies it went through before 1975.

A perfectly fair account. Could one perhaps also suggest that Vietnam was not unlike Laos in the 1950s/early 60s with a staunchly nationalist regime in the north which was virtually a communist-like state? Like Laos, Vietnam was decimated during the US war and remained so in the early years of reunification. It was then one of the world's poorest countries. It did not start to develop economically until the mid-1980s. Since then its economic development has been remarkable. Yet Vietnam is also an authoritarian single party government.

We can assume that the authoritarian government in Laos has severely hampered development. But had Vietnam started its development after it managed to kick the hated French from its territory in 1954, we cannot know if the country would have developed more quickly. We also cannot know if in so doing it would have dragged other countries in Indo China along with it.

 

[PeterRS]

5 minutes ago, vinapu said:

But can't be blamed to current shortage or workers in Laos either

Try as I have, I totally fail to see the connection.

[vinapu]

3 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

 I totally fail to see the connection.

that was my subtle point

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

With respect I think your view of history is incorrect. Malaysia wanted Singapore to stay. It was Lee Kwan Yew who decded to leave.

 

Malaysia was keen on predominantly Chinese Singapore staying only if they agreed to Federation's  ethnically based policies on which PAP, main party in Singapore was not keen to subscribe to.  When PAP was trying to break into Peninsular politics on federal level  and ethnic  riots of 1963 and 1964 Lee was left with no choice other than accepting invitation  to leave. Which crying on TV on Aug 9-1965 he accepted.

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

With respect I think your view of history is incorrect.

I suspect our view of history is identical - no harm done  for either country with Singapore going own way 58 years ago

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, vinapu said:

Malaysia was keen on predominantly Chinese Singapore staying only if they agreed to Federation's  ethnically based policies on which PAP, main party in Singapore was not keen to subscribe to.  When PAP was trying to break into Peninsular politics on federal level  and ethnic  riots of 1963 and 1964 Lee was left with no choice other than accepting invitation  to leave. Which crying on TV on Aug 9-1965 he accepted.

The leaders of both Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, were constantly at odds over the degree of power each would wield in the new Union. There were frequent and sharp exchanges between the two. Lee was frustrated at the delays in getting KL to give Singapore industries the agreed pioneer tax status, and KL was frustrated that its constant requests for a greater share of tax revenues from the Singapore entity were not met as it sought to combat confrontation from Indonesia. Then the two main political parties (PAP and UMNO) started bitter political wrangling, often publicly, in particular re UMNO's continuing insistence on dominance for ethnic Malays in governance.

The imbalance in populations between the greater Malay population on the one hand and the greater Chinese population of Singapore on the other did then lead, as @vinapu points out, to race riots in July and September 1964. It was at the Commonwealth leaders Conference in London in 1965 that the Tunku announced privately the Union with Singapore had to end. In the ensuing negotiations, most Singapore ministers and departments were kept completely in the dark. Lee and his colleagues did not want to leave but they were left with no choice. Lee still believed that Singapore could not succeed as a nation on its own. How wrong he proved to be!

[vinapu]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Lee still believed that Singapore could not succeed as a nation on its own. How wrong he proved to be!

because as he famously said ' we did not had and resources so we decided to develop only resource we had -our people "

[forrestreid]

15 hours ago, PeterRS said:

A perfectly fair account. Could one perhaps also suggest that Vietnam was not unlike Laos in the 1950s/early 60s with a staunchly nationalist regime in the north which was virtually a communist-like state? Like Laos, Vietnam was decimated during the US war and remained so in the early years of reunification. It was then one of the world's poorest countries. It did not start to develop economically until the mid-1980s. Since then its economic development has been remarkable. Yet Vietnam is also an authoritarian single party government.

We can assume that the authoritarian government in Laos has severely hampered development. But had Vietnam started its development after it managed to kick the hated French from its territory in 1954, we cannot know if the country would have developed more quickly. We also cannot know if in so doing it would have dragged other countries in Indo China along with it.

 

I would agree with a lot of that analysis.

However, just to clarify, I never suggested that an "authoritarian" government is, in itself, a major restriction on development. Many non-Communist authoritarian governments, such as Chile under Pinochet, or South Korea under Park Chung Hee, achieved very high growth rates.

Authoritarian Vietnam has had very high growth rates since it more or less abandoned trying to implement Communism properly in the mid-1980s.

Laos, although not so far down this road as Vietnam, has managed quite respectable growth rates since the year 2000 or so. I get the impression that Laos is more corrupt than Vietnam (the main Achilles heel of an authoritarian government), which may slow it down.

But, like Vietnam, it is now catching up with the likes of Taiwan and South Korea.

By the way, I am not trying to minimise how terrible the experience of American bombing that Laos suffered between 1960 and 1975. However, I just don’t think it had that much impact on growth rates in Laos since peace came in 1975.

Edited September 6, 2023 by forrestreid
spelling

[vinapu]

39 minutes ago, forrestreid said:

 

 I never suggested that an "authoritarian" government is, in itself, a major restriction on development. Many non-Communist authoritarian governments, such as Chile under Pinochet, or South Korea under Park Chung Hee, achieved very high growth rates.

 

rightly so , actually it may be much easier to force changes, including those for common good,   in authoritarian countries than in messy democracies dealing with NIMBY-ism at every turn.

I'd  not exclude Communist authoritarian governments either, it took one generation to turn Russia from agrarian to industrial  country and records of some East European regimes  in rebuilding their countries ravaged by war  are nothing to sneeze at.

[reader]

After all is said and done, workers from Laos are choosing to work in Thailand--and other paces--because they're industrious workers and can make a better living there.

Among the factors that drove them to look elsewhere was runaway inflation, the fallout from the enormous debt service Laos pays to Chinese lenders, none of whom is Harold Wilson.

 

 

 

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, reader said:

After all is said and done, workers from Laos are choosing to work in Thailand--because they're industrious workers and can make a better living there.

 

I feel beneficiary of Laos problems because I must say looking back , Laos boys are the best. Some are happy to be living in Thailand, some are sending money home and dream about day they will be back but best they are nevertheless

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, reader said:

debt service Laos pays to Chinese lenders, none of whom is Harold Wilson.

 

I always suspected he is NOT Chinese , thank you for making it clear