Thank you for an interesting and important post. It is amazing how many well-meaning Westerners want to ban poor and desperate people from doing things that would genuinely make their lives better, simply because those Westerners cannot imagine themselves ever being so poor and desperate that they would voluntarily [work as a labourer in Qatar | work in a sweatshop | sell a kidney | insert example here].
I made a similar point in Don't take bad options away from people but I hope that your more concrete and less abstract post will persuade people more effectively.
Thank you, a quick glance at your post leaves me nodding in agreement. It's a damn shame it didn't get the traction it deserves. I wish more people understood that we shouldn't let the bad become the enemy of the even worse.
This seems like putting the cart before the horse though?
If there existed a literally perfect arbiter of “bad”, “enemy”, “worse”, and so on that literally 100% of mankind adhered to… your writing wouldn’t even be needed in the first place.
I'm more sensitive to this argument than I used to be, but this, like the Dumbledore's Army post mentioned, is a fully general argument. Following this maxim, any activity that leads to a higher payoff should be allowed, which enables a quick welfare race-to-the-bottom whereby people can be subjected to anything as long as there is something to gain. This can only really apply in a world that is single-shot, detached from space, detached from time, and detached from a life that is anything other than a strict ordering.
I do not intend to fully generalize this argument, even if I understand it can be interpreted that way. While I am not a card-carrying libertarian, I am sympathetic, and think that the government and public opinion would be better served by getting out of the way of mutually positive sum exchanges between consenting adults. This is a view held on the margin, deferring greatly to empirical outcomes.
But let's say that I was starving to death, and someone offered to save me and feed me in exchange for becoming a slave or an indentured servant. I would resent the offer, but I would take it, and while I do not think slavery should be legal, I would be mad if someone else stepped in and prevented the transaction on abolitionist grounds. It beats starving to death.
Right now, my genuine conviction, arising both from personal experience and research, is that these migrants do not see themselves as slaves or indentured servants. Conditions are far from ideal, but also far from a standard where I think the world should attempt to intervene. That is what I'm arguing for, here. I genuinely believe that the Qataris are not maximally callous or evil (and not even as bad as popularly perceived in the West), even if I would like to see them be more considerate towards their hired labor.
Edit: In that thought experiment where you're stranded in a desert and a stranger offers to rescue you for $1000 once you reach an ATM (leaving aside his superhuman ability to identify your honesty), I would both accept the offer and actually pay out (if I had the money, if not, I would try to pay as much as I can). I would do this both for decision theoretical reasons, and from moral conviction.
Incentives matter. If it was illegal for someone to make a starving person pay for food with an indentured servant contract, he could just refuse to sell you the food, but his incentive is to sell it to you at the maximum legal price. The result in the real abolitionist world would be that the starving person is better off, and the person selling the food only gets a high fee but misses out on an indentured servant contract.
Libertarians usually can't handle fixing situations with bad incentives or improving incentives because people respond to the bad incentives voluntarily, so there is no way for a libertarian to decide that prohibiting the bad incentive can improve things
I do not intend to fully generalize this argument, even if I understand it can be interpreted that way.
If you don't intend to generalize it, on what grounds do you decide that it doesn't need to be generalized? After all it looks as though the reasoning still applies. That seems like it would foreclose refusing to generalize it.
Refer to Dumbledore's Army's definition of the factors that are commonly understood to constitute exploitation/coercion. As far as I can tell, none of them were present in the situation I've depicted, at least with the people I spoke to. In their absence, the argument doesn't generalize.
I am also not maximally libertarian, my libertarian sympathies are strongly based on empirical arguments. If a system was leading to bad outcomes, I have no objection to patching the system.
But one argument you gave is:
I would be mad if someone else stepped in and prevented the transaction on abolitionist grounds. It beats starving to death.
This argument is flat out wrong. If slavery is forbidden, the would be slaveowner is incentivized to sell you the food for a price that is large but less than a slave contract. Thus, you would not starve to death, and in fact you would be strictly better off than if the slave contract was allowed.
How is it "wrong"? It's my hypothetical, we are taking for granted that slavery is an option, legal or not, and that this person would not hire me if they could not get away with enslaving me, and the only immediately available alternative for this hypothetical me was dying of starvation. You are welcome to argue with the premise, but it is intended to be fictional. I am not in straits so dire I would welcome slavery, I am saying what I would do if I were.
It's "wrong" because you describe a scenario where if slavery is prohibited, you will starve, but in that scenario if slavery is prohibited you won't starve--because if slavery is banned, the slaver is still incentivized to sell you the food at a price less than a slave contract.
You can't just say "it's my scenario so that doesn't happen", because to do that you have to have a scenario where incentives don't work, and if you do the scenario has no relevance to the real world.
The trolley problem doesn't become invalid because you can point out that real trolleys have emergency brakes.
You are missing the fact that my scenario stipulates that the person is starving, and that is presumably because they are unable to afford food at market rate. If they had disposable income to purchase food at any price, however high, the scenario would never reach the point of the slave contract being on the table in the first place.
The thought experiment is designed to pump a specific moral intuition: that having an additional option available - even an unpleasant one - cannot make you worse off relative to not having that option at all. That point stands even if the real world frequently provides better alternatives. The existence of cases where banning slavery leads to better outcomes (because the would-be slaveowner then offers cash terms) is entirely compatible with my claim. My claim isn't "slavery bans always lead to worse outcomes." It's "if the only alternative is death, then having access to this transaction is better than being prohibited from it by a third party."
There's a good reason that I specified that the real world is, thankfully, at a level of economic and moral development (if the latter is a meaningful thing) where vanishingly few people are confronted with a dilemma as stark. I acknowledged that upfront. The thought experiment is a ladder/intuition pump for reaching the underlying moral principle; the Qatari case stands on its own empirical merits. If I thought otherwise, I would put my thought experiment in the body of the text. It is not load bearing, at the very least.
You get to specify that the trolley doesn't have brakes because you can say "I will only apply the conclusion I am getting from the trolley problem in real life situations that are similar to the trolley problem in that there are no (metaphorical) brakes."
The equivalent for your slavery contract is "I will permit slavery only in situations where I will starve if a slavery contract is not allowed". You can't do this, because you can't have a slavery law that applies only in a specific, unlikely, scenario. A law permitting slavery will apply in the vastly more common scenario where the slaver is still incentivised to get some money from you and sell you the food.
Yeah, I think there's something important to be said for 'incremental decision making'. Getting to try something on for size for a bit, and see if it is what it was advertised to be, and being allowed to cancel the bargain if it turns out it was a bad bargain.
I would feel better about the Qatar situation if it were easier for the workers to quit and go back home, and if the true fatality rate were disclosed to potential workers. Other than that, I think it should be allowed.
Selling kidneys? That's a trickier situation because it's high impact and an irreversible life-long change. I still wouldn't outright forbid it, but I'd for sure want more protections in place to make sure people were properly warned, got to talk to others who had done it about the effects, got time to consider their decision and not be pressure-sold on it, got some third party arbiter making sure they got paid the agreed upon amount.
Selling oneself or one's children into servitude without cancellation clauses and little to no rights? Humanity has tried this one, and it tends to go really poorly.
There. Now we have some limits and we can discuss where to draw what lines. No longer an unbounded claim towards unfettered contractualism, no longer an unbounded claim towards unfettered paternalism.
What do you think of my stipulations?
Selling oneself or one's children into servitude without cancellation clauses and little to no rights?
This phrasing sounds like these are pretty similar types of actions, but I I want to point out that they're very different. There are clear strong reasons to forbid "selling one's children into servitude" that don't apply to "selling oneself into servitude". (Those reasons being summed up by "children are not your property".)
Should selling oneself also be forbidden? Maybe! I intuitively lean yes. But it's a lot less obvious to me than the former. Are there or have there been cultures where selling oneself is permitted but selling one's children is forbidden?
Employment in exchange for money or other resources is (a form of, if not a central example) of selling yourself for money!
Time and money are, to a degree, fungible. Until we solve aging and then solve Heat Death, our time under the sun, or in the presence of negentropy is limited.
I am selling my time, energy, physical and cognitive effort, in exchange for hard currency. I do not sell all of it, but it looks like a quantitative difference and not a qualitative one.
When I spend 8 hours a day in the clinic, I am not doing it because I intrinsically want to spend 8 hours a day in the clinic (even if I like psychiatry and medicine, and sometimes offer advice to people for free, unprompted). I do it because I like and need money. I also need to stay alive, and will accept many indignities to keep it, while acknowledging that there are things that could happen or be done to me where I'd prefer death.
I agree with the example of selling children being (generally, almost universally) undesirable. But let's say I was a poor farmer in India struggling to look after my family, I mean really struggling. If a rich Western couple came by and offered to adopt one of them, I would be inclined to agree, even more so if they offered to pay me. The parents of a child hold legal rights over them that are, at least while I'm squinting, comparable to the control and authority a master wields over a slave (albeit with very different incentives). This would, at least in theory, be very illegal. I don't think it should be illegal by default. I would not judge them, I would feel slightly sad for them.
Even if we're talking bona-fide slavery, if the alternative is that my family (myself and the kid) all starve, then I think I would accept too. I would hate myself for it, but the choice is a strict upgrade to everyone dying, including the kid.
It's very good that the modern world is at a stage of economic and moral development that such decisions are very rarely necessary, or made. We are blessed, in historical terms.
(To be clear, my main point in this comment was to make the ethical distinction between sacrificing yourself and sacrificing your child, not to talk in detail about the ethics of either of them.)
I agree with you directionally relative to where I think modern western culture lands. I do also think there are cases where I'm willing to say "yup, if you made that trade, you and your trading partner would be better off; no, I don't think you should be allowed to do it". Sometimes for collective-bargaining reasons, sometimes for other externalities reasons, sometimes for "this is too hard for the law to distinguish from other cases" reasons, maybe sometimes also for other reasons that I'm not thinking of now. The cases where I'm willing to say this vary depending on the surrounding economic circumstances.
The parents of a child hold legal rights over them that are, at least while I'm squinting, comparable to the control and authority a master wields over a slave (albeit with very different incentives).
I guess here I was thinking of "selling your child into a worse situation than the one they're in now", but I do admit that sometimes, selling them into indentured servitude might improve their situation.
...but even then, if they don't want it, I think you should have a much higher bar for it than for selling yourself into indentured servitude.
I disagree that this is a fully general argument and I think the phrase "a quick welfare race-to-the-bottom whereby people can be subjected to anything as long as there is something to gain" is tendentious and hostile.
I do generally support letting people take 'bad' options which they reflectively endorse as their least-bad choice in the imperfect world we actually live in; AlphaAndOmega has gone into depth on the specific 'bad' option of performing migrant labour in Qatar. I can't speak for AlphaAndOmega, but I'm also a libertarian and have strong moral objections to stopping consenting adults making their own choices which don't affect anyone else.
But here are some things people might be subjected to which I don't support, and which this "fully general" argument doesn't support:
I suspect that you are pattern-matching us against some other argument that is not quite the one we're making. Perhaps I've misunderstood you - would you like to elaborate on your concerns?
Your representation of my views is accurate. I am not maximally libertarian, but I lean that way. I would call myself a classically liberal minarchist with strong libertarian-sympathies, and I am happy to endorse everything you have said.
Everyone I spoke to, seemed to me, to be a reasonably rational and well-informed adult, adjusting for education and background. Alongside the absence of concerning statements (absence of evidence is evidence of absence for Bayesians), I did not hear any positive statements about Qatar that would have had me question if that individual had concerningly over-optimistic beliefs.
Pretty much. There is an argument for "if you can't provide a better option, don't take away what people have out of self righteousness". It's hard to thread the needle exactly. But if we make everything for sale and everything available as long as there's some marginal gain to be made, all that happens is that Moloch eventually grinds away all margins and eventually even the best option is pretty bad. Not in this case probably tbf (I don't think Qatar cares too much about what westerners thinks and their salaries are entirely determined by how much they need to be to attract the workers they need, so in this case the argument is probably kinda fine). But overall, yeah, you would quickly get in loops such as "allow people to sell organs if so they choose -> now everyone in the poorest tiers of society HAS to sell at least one kidney to survive".
Maybe the main lesson is that it should be made more clear that constraints aren't for the sake of the specific people who may or may not be impacted by them right now, but for the sake of shoring up principles to progressive erosion.
I think the example of organ sales is a poor illustration of your point. Demand for organs is limited and won't reach such a high level.
Agreed on empirical grounds. The US had legal paid donation of blood, but even in the poorest places, I have not heard that the majority of people in struggling communities feel compelled to sell theirs, or even that something close to a majority do it. I haven't even heard of actual full fat organ harvesting as more than a rare event in India, where although it is nominally illegal, there are places where the rule of law is tenuous and poverty rampant. I mean I think I have heard of it happening on the news at least once in my life, I've never seen even the most impoverished patient point to a scar on their abdomen and say, "Oh, I had to sell my kidney to pay for rent".
By the definition of this post, the basic bargain being offered to migrant workers is not exploitative (not unless there are relatively costless things that can significantly improve their QoL that aren't being done). But a number of the add-ons, like passport seizure, probably are.
I was in Dubai for the first part of COVID. I saw lots of migrant workers spending all day manning largely-empty retail businesses, bored out of their minds, not allowed to user their phones. I'd still rather be them than the ones working in the sun, but I found that exploitative.
>By the definition of this post, the basic bargain being offered to migrant workers is not exploitative (not unless there are relatively costless things that can significantly improve their QoL that aren't being done). But a number of the add-ons, like passport seizure, probably are.
The thing is, I didn't hear about passport seizure and similar abuse. I recall asking multiple people, at least a dozen. If I had heard even one person say so plainly, or even hint at it, I promise I would have remembered and met a note of it.
>I was in Dubai for the first part of COVID. I saw lots of migrant workers spending all day manning largely-empty retail businesses, bored out of their minds, not allowed to user their phones. I'd still rather be them than the ones working in the sun, but I found that exploitative.
I have worked a job as a doctor in India where I was not allowed to use my phone, even when work was non-existent and there was nothing else to do. The job I just described is the very same one as the one I've written about. I found that constraint extremely annoying (it was in place because a previous doctor was caught asking for bribes), but I would not call it exploitation even when I personally experienced it. That's despite the fact that it was a major reason for me quitting, I needed the ability to study my digital notes more than I needed the money, so my ex and I left for work that paid worse but was more accommodating.
I would still call the phone thing exploitative behavior -- massive loss on you, at most a small benefit to themselves.
On a related note, I had an ex that was prone to angry outbursts, including for things that really do not make sense for her to get upset about, with the most memorable example being that she got really upset and started kicking random objects because I was taking too long to peel some asparagus (as we had just watched a Thomas Keller video on the topic, and I was trying to do deliberate practice on my technique). She followed up with "You have no talent at cooking."
I'd describe that and similar incidents as: she engaged in abusive behavior, but her verbal blows did not connect in the manner needed to be full abuse. By that time I had enough mental fortitude and perspective that my reaction was more "Haha, she's getting upset over something silly and saying something that obviously does not follow from she's seen, silly girl, kiss me in the morning" than of feeling the emotional hits that would make me abused. It would have been different if these incidents had happened a few years earlier, when I was much more fragile.
So for your situation: perhaps it would be fair to describe it as: your employer engaged in exploitative behavior, but did not successfully exploit you, because you were in a position to walk away. Someone who really did need the money may have responded differently.
I mean, I am one of the people who is claimed to have been exploited here. I think the fact that I don't think I was should be a strong argument, if not a knockdown one.
It is very common for employers to ask things of their employees that the latter does not agree with. Sometimes the costs are disproportionately on the latter. But I still don't think it's a good example of exploitation. I think what I've described is a light shade of gray instead of pitch black.
I acknowledge that standards are subjective, and reasonable people can disagree on what counts. Sometimes exploitation and patterns of abuse are only evident in hindsight.
>So for your situation: perhaps it would be fair to describe it as: your employer engaged in exploitative behavior, but did not successfully exploit you, because you were in a position to walk away. Someone who really did need the money may have responded differently.
I genuinely disagree. I knew what I was getting into, even if I didn't predict other issues that played into me quitting. They'd told me phones weren't allowed before I joined, or at least severely restricted (probably the former, but memory is far from perfect). They also knew that we were going to be rather temporary employees, we said we'd probably leave in six months because of exams. We ended up leaving in 3 or 4, but not just because of the phones. Management was awful. The hours were draining (I knew this one in advance too). They knew their leverage over us was from complete, and we knew that too. Everyone agreed to shake hands at the beginning, things only soured later.
Au contraire. I generally think that, for these kinds of definitions, individual cases about how someone feels have little bearing on the definition at all. There's a well-cited dictum in American law that I wish I could find right now, to the effect of "it would be absurd for the law to decide whether an action was tortious specifically depending on the fortitude of the recipient. " I think the same applies to the present context. After all, several kinds of exploitative behavior are tortious (e.g.: hostile work environment) if not outright violative of labor law (e.g.: OSHA), these categories were largely not illegal 150 years ago, and there's no fundamental reason why the law might not grow to protect against more kinds of exploitative behavior.
This is why many definitions might be phrased in terms of "a person of ordinary fortitude" or with lines like "that would cause a reasonable person to feel distress. " This is usually applied as a razor excluding particularly fragile victims, but the razor cuts both ways.
Likewise, someone saying they're exploited for being asked to come to work on time also has little bearing on the validity off the concept. I don't have a real example of that at hand, but i do recall very similar examples that merely substitute the word "racist" for "exploited." I also recall another even stronger example from another domain, but unfortunately some personal reasons make me wary of discussing that particular topic in public
In law and philosophy, definitions are oft constructed to operationalize intuition. But once constructed, the validity of the construct is scant influenced by individual cases.
That is an understandable and reasonable position, even if I retain some degree of disagreement. But I will note that the law often cuts the other way, for example the eggshell doctrine, where even unreasonable or highly unlikely negative outcomes are prosecuted maximally, despite the criminal action not being expected, at least in hindsight, to cause harm as serious as what ended up happening. Anyway, IANAL, and our views do not diverge except at edge cases for the most part.
I somehow learned about the eggshell skull doctrine long before I started more systematic study of law. If that's also the case for you, then it seems it has some kind of virality that leads a lot of people to learn about it who have otherwise not studied tort law.
And that's unfortunate, because it's actually widely regarded as an exception in law, which typically requires foreseeability in tort. E.g.: a part of a mill is in for repair, repair guy is 48 hours late, mill is shut down for 48 hours because they're waiting for the part, can they sue for the 48 hour shutdown? Answer: no, because normally mills will have an extra of such part, and there was no way for the repair guy to know that this one didn't and therefore time was of the essence.
(IANAL, but I once had a seasoned lawyer tell me I was operating at the level of a second-year associate.)
But also, back to the object discussion: the feelings of being exploited are relevant only in that a definition of exploitation is trying to operationalize the underlying concept that causes many people to form an intuitive sense of exploitation. The primary harms of being exploited don't actually depend on whether you feel exploited. Similarly, if you get in a cab and the cab driver demands $1000 for what should have been a $20 trip, but for some reason you don't "feel ripped off" (because e.g. you feel like throwing around money, not because he delivered extra value by, say, being an exceptional conversationalist), you're still out $980.
Thank you for taking the time to explain, but I am, unfortunately (no sarcasm), not American and my familiarity with your laws (if you're talking about American laws, this is usually a justified assumption, but I'd feel bad if I made it after reminding you that I'm not American) is significantly greater than typical but far from comprehensive. I am unable to opine on standards in the UK or India either, at least not with authority.
I will refer you to a recent comment made by @Dumbledores Army which I wholly endorse. It noted that the situation I have restricted myself to describing in this essay does not meet the classic, intuitive or many formalized definitions of exploitation:
Or I would, if I could actually see a way to link to it. Sorry, but it's right here in the comment section.
Most (but definitely not all) tort law principles are the same across common law jurisdictions, but you seem to be aware of that. I hope you found this digression interesting and relevant to the definitional discussion.
I agree that the things described at length in this post -- which can largely be summed up as "being a migrant worker" -- are not exploitative. But I think passport seizure is.
I'll hop over to that thread.
The people who know best still queued up for hours in the hopes of returning
This is selection bias, right? You saw the people who went once and tried to return, but not the people who went once and regretted it. (Or is this sentence based on something else?)
Someone asked me the same question on Reddit, so I'll reproduce my reply:
[Same question as yours]
I do acknowledge the sampling bias here, and in hindsight I could have made a note of it. But I primarily did not bother because I do not think that bias might be large enough to affect my thesis.
Maybe a third of the patients I saw were there to renew an existing work permit. I must have spoken to dozens of people about their personal attitude towards work and life there, and I never heard anything very negative. The universal consensus was that it was better than the conditions at home.
>Those who chose to stay home or go elsewhere after their contract expired (and those who died) weren't medically screened again, because it sounds like screening was only done during or prior to onboarding.
The death rate is tiny, almost inconsequential in absolute terms. As far as I can tell, I would have missed out on a fraction of a human individual even if considering the number of patients I personally reviewed were in the thousands.
Many people told me that they did not intend to stay in the Gulf indefinitely or even as long as allowed. They were content to work a decade or two, build up significant savings, and then come back to India to focus on family or do slower work while living off their savings. They earn in a year what they could make in a decade, and so even a short stint can set them up for a very long time if they're prudent.
The primary dissatisfaction was core to any migrant: they were going to be far from home, far from family and friends in a foreign land. I can make the exact same complaint myself.
I was also not a direct employee of the Qatar government, they were using an Indian firm as a contractor. I think that the people I spoke to were largely honest with me, though it is a possibility that they might have been slightly concerned that bad-mouthing Qatar would cause them negative consequences.
[Followup comment and my own reply below]
I agree that I wouldn't be able to see the people who chose not to go in the first place, but there are many other reasons for why someone might not be able to go too. Not every able-bodied person would be willing to emigrate in the first place, both because of personal preference and other familial obligations that keep them at home. Then there's the fact that Qatar or the Middle East in general isn't the only option for them, even if my understanding is that it's one of the most significant/popular choices, so those put off by any negative reputation do have other choices (once again including not going at all).
Some (not necessarily you) might argue that there's too much information asymmetry involved and that the workers don't know what they're getting into. If someone were to claim that (no has, at the time of writing), then I'd wave at the repeat customers, and that by 2023, even poor day laborers have smartphones and internet access, and do talk to each other and share information. It isn't like the 80s, 90s or even the early 2000s, when workers were leaving with far less context at hand.
nsequences.
Maybe a third of the patients I saw were there to renew an existing work permit.
Oh, that's much more than I would have guessed!
This is a subjective estimate, I wasn't literally counting, but I think it's reasonable and at least an honest impression. At the risk of being slightly pretentious, my 95% CI would be 20-50% of the cases were there to make a return. I have not actually checked official figures yet.
(Maybe I shouldn't worry too much about being nerdy or particular, this is LessWrong after all. If we won't tolerate it, who will?)
Just to add: oh, the number isn't quite what I thought. It's not "a third of people renew", because the people who renew have to go through a first time first. It means "mean number of times a person renews" is 0.5. When someone renewed, I don't know if you knew how many times they'd been. But I'd guess the distribution looks more like "half of people renew once" than like "a quarter of people renew twice"?
(I know it's a rough number, and this is also making assumptions like "this is a steady state" and "the people you see aren't selected for renewal", but this seems like a useful order-of-magnitude calculation.)
I think that the records I had access to would have given me information regarding prior applications and stints, but I was quite busy and did not check regularly. Take my subjective impressions with an RDA-approved pinch of salt.
(If the exact proportion of returnees was load-bearing on my ethical arguments, I would have checked them more rigorously, and maybe I should have anyway)
While my particular workplace catered to a very large proportion of India, I do recall there were other visa centers, and circumstances and demographics could vary. I have no particular reason to think my situation wasn't representative, but I will not declare so with strict confidence.
Most of the time, my recollection is that either I directly asked, or the patients mentioned it unprompted. I might even be underestimating the number of returnees, now that I consider it, it's a distinct possibility.
I do think that a steady-state is a reasonable assumption. There is significant background demand for labor in Qatar, but I would assume that the boom before 2022 had died down for some time and things were back to "normal". "Normal" still meant hundreds of applicants a day, a third of them seen by me personally.
Truly horrible, the unbearable poverty and agonies in this world. This redoubles my conviction we must do everything possible to increase the speed of technological progress.
Note on AI usage: As is my norm, I use LLMs for proof reading, editing, feedback and research purposes. This essay started off as an entirely human written draft, and went through multiple cycles of iteration. The primary additions were citations, and I have done my best to personally verify every link and claim. All other observations are entirely autobiographical, albeit written in retrospect. If anyone insists, I can share the original, and intermediate forms, though my approach to version control is lacking. It's there if you really want it.
If you want to map the trajectory of my medical career, you will need a large piece of paper, a pen, and a high tolerance for Brownian motion. It has been tortuous, albeit not quite to the point of varicosity.
Why, for instance, did I spend several months in 2023 working as a GP at a Qatari visa center in India? Mostly because my girlfriend at the time found a job listing that seemed to pay above market rate, and because I needed money for takeout. I am a simple creature, with even simpler needs: I require shelter, internet access, and enough disposable income to ensure a steady influx of complex carbohydrates and the various types of Vitamin B. For all practical purposes, this means biryani.
Why did a foreign branch of the Qatari immigration department require several doctors? Primarily, to process the enormous number of would-be Indian laborers who wished to take up jobs there. I would say they were 99% of the case load - low-skilled laborers working in construction, as domestic servants, as chauffeurs or truck drivers. There were the odd handful of students, or higher-skilled workers, but so few of them that I could still count them on my fingers even after several hundreds of hours of work.
Our job was to perform a quick medical examination and assess fitness for work. Odd chest sounds or a weird cough? Exclude tuberculosis. Weird rashes or bumps? The absolute last thing Qatari urban planners wanted was an outbreak of chickenpox or fungal infections tearing through a high-density labor dormitory. Could the applicant see and hear well enough to avoid being crushed by heavy machinery, or to avoid crushing others when operating heavy machinery? Were they carrying HIV? It was our job to exclude these possibilities before they got there in the first place. Otherwise, the government wasn't particularly picky - a warm body with mostly functional muscles and ligaments would suffice.
This required less cognitive effort than standard GP or Family Medicine. The causal arrow of the doctor-patient interaction was reversed. These people weren’t coming to us because they were sick and seeking healing; they were coming to us because they needed to prove they weren't sick enough to pose a public health hazard or suffer a catastrophic workplace failure.
We were able to provide some actual medical care. It's been several years, so I don't recall with confidence if the applicants were expected to pay for things, or if some or all of the expense was subsidized. But anti-tubercular meds, antifungal ointments and the like weren't that expensive. Worst case, if we identified something like a hernia, the poorest patients could still report to a government hospital for free treatment.
A rejection on medical grounds wasn't necessarily final. Plenty of applicants returned, after having sought treatment for whatever disqualified them the first time. It wasn't held against them.
While the workload was immense (there were a lot of patients to see, and not much time to see them given our quotas), I did regularly have the opportunity to chat with my patients when work was slow or while I was working on simple documentation. Some of that documentation included the kind of work they intended to do (we'd care more about poor vision for a person who had sought a job as a driver than we would for a sanitation worker), and I was initially quite curious about why they felt the need to become a migrant worker in the first place.
Then there was the fact that public perception in the West had soured on Qatari labor practices in the wake of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Enormous numbers of migrant workers had been brought in to help build stadiums and infrastructure, and many had died.
Exact and reliable numbers are hard to find. The true number of deaths remains deeply contested. The Guardian reported that at least 6,500 South Asian migrant workers died in Qatar since the country was awarded the World Cup in 2010 - many were low-wage migrant workers, and a substantial share worked in construction and other physically demanding sectors exposed to extreme heat. However, this figure is disputed. Critics noted that the 6,500 figure refers to all deaths of migrant workers from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh regardless of cause, and that not all of those deaths were work-related or tied to World Cup projects.
Qatar's official position was far lower. Qatari authorities maintained there were three work-related deaths and 37 non-work-related deaths on World Cup-related projects within the Supreme Committee's scope. But in a striking on-camera admission, Hassan al-Thawadi, secretary general of Qatar's Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, told a TV interviewer that there had been "between 400 and 500" migrant worker deaths connected to World Cup preparations over the preceding 12 years. His committee later walked the comment back, claiming it referred to nationwide work-related fatalities across all sectors. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both called even the 400-500 figure a vast undercount.
It is worth pausing here, because the statistics are genuinely confusing in ways that I think matter. The 6,500 figure, as several researchers have noted, covers all-cause mortality for a very large working-age male population over twelve years - a group that would have a non-trivial background death rate even if they stayed home and did nothing dangerous. Some analyses, including ILO-linked work on Nepali migrants, have argued that overall mortality was not obviously higher than among comparable same-age Nepali men, though other research found marked heat-linked cardiovascular mortality among Nepali workers in Qatar. The Nepal report also (correctly) notes that the migrants go through medical screening, and are mostly young men in better health on average. They try to adjust for this, at least for age.
I raise this not to minimize the deaths - dying of heat exhaustion in a foreign country, far from your family, in service of a football tournament, is a genuine tragedy regardless of the comparison group - but because I think precision matters. "Qatar killed 6,500 workers" and "Qatar had elevated occupational mortality in difficult-to-quantify ways" are meaningfully different claims, and conflating them makes it harder to know what we should actually want to change.
I am unsure if there was increased scrutiny on the health of incoming workers to avoid future deaths, or if the work I was doing was already standard. I do not recall any formal or informal pressure from my employers to turn a blind eye to disqualifying conditions - that came from the workers themselves. I will get to that.
I already felt some degree of innate sympathy for the applicants. Were we really that different, them and I?
At that exact moment in my life, I was furiously studying for the exams that would allow me to move to the UK and work in the NHS. We were both engaged in geographic arbitrage. We were both looking at the map of the global economy, identifying zones of massive capital accumulation, and jumping through burning bureaucratic hoops to transport our human capital there to capture the wage premium. Nobody really calls an Indian doctor moving to the UK a "migrant worker," but that is exactly what I am right now. The difference between me and the guy applying to drive forklifts in Doha is quantitative, not qualitative.
I could well understand the reasons why someone might leave their friends and family behind, go to a distant land across an ocean and then work long hours in suboptimal conditions, but I wanted to hear that for myself.
As I expected, the main reason was the incredibly attractive pay. If I'm being honest, the main reason I moved to the UK was the money too. "Incredibly attractive?" I imagine you thinking, perhaps recalling that by First World standards their salary was grossly lacking. To the point of regular accusation that the Qataris and other Middle Eastern petrostates are exploitative, preying on their workers.
First World standards are not Third World standards.
This is where Western intuition about labor often misfires, stumbling into a sort of well-intentioned but suffocating paternalism. The argument generally goes: This job involves intense heat, long hours, and low pay relative to Western minimum wages. Therefore, it is inherently exploitative, and anyone taking it must be a victim of coercion or deception.
This completely ignores the economic principle of revealed preferences: the idea that you can tell what a person actually values by observing what they choose to do under constraint. Western pundits sit in climate-controlled pods and declare that nobody should ever have to work in forty-degree heat for $300 a month. But for someone whose alternative is working in forty-degree heat in Bihar for $30 a month with no social safety net, banning Qatari labor practices doesn't save them. It just destroys their highest expected-value option.
You cannot legislate away grinding poverty and resource constraints.
The economic case for Gulf migration from South Asia is almost embarrassingly strong when you actually look at it. India received roughly $120 billion in remittances in 2023, making it the world's largest recipient, with Gulf states still accounting for a very large share, though the RBI's own survey data show that advanced economies now contribute more than half of India's remittances. For certain origin states - Kerala being the clearest case, alongside Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu - remittance income is not a rounding error in household economics; it is the household economy. The man sending money home from Doha is participating in a system that has done more for South Asian poverty alleviation than most bilateral aid programs combined. This is not a defense of every condition under which that labor is extracted. It is simply a fact that seems consistently underweighted in Western discourse.
Consider the following gentleman: he had shown up seeking to clear the medical examination so that he could carry sacks of concrete under the sweltering heat of a desert sun. Out of curiosity, I asked him why he hadn't looked for work around his place of birth.
He looked at me, quite forlorn, and explained that there was no work to be had there. He hailed from a small village, had no particular educational qualifications, and the kinds of odd jobs and day labor he had once done had dried up long ago. I noted that he had already traveled a distance equivalent to half the breadth of Europe to even show up here on the other end of India in the first place, and can only trust his judgment that he would not have done this without good reason.
Another man comes to mind (it is not a coincidence that the majority of applicants were men). He was a would-be returnee - he had completed a several year tour of duty in Qatar itself, for as long as his visa allowed, and then returned because he was forced to, immediately seeking reassessment so he could head right back. He had worked as a truck driver, and now wanted to become a personal chauffeur instead.
He had been away for several years and had not returned a moment before he was compelled to. He had family: a wife and a young son, as well as elderly parents. All of them relied on him as their primary breadwinner. I asked him if he missed them. Of course he did. But love would not put food on the table. Love would not put his son into a decent school and ensure that he picked up the educational qualifications that would break the cycle. Love would not ensure his elderly and increasingly frail parents would get beyond-basic medical care and not have to till marginal soil at the tiny plot of land they farmed.
But the labor he did out of love and duty would. He told me that he videocalled them every night, and showed me that he kept a picture of his family on his phone. He had a physical copy close at hand, tucked behind the transparent case. It was bleached by the sun to the point of illegibility and half-covered by what I think was a small-denomination Riyal note.
He said this all in an incredibly matter-of-fact way. I felt my eyes tear up, and I looked away so he wouldn't notice. My eyes are already tearing up as I write this passage, the memories no less vivid for the passage of many years. Now, you are at the point where my screen is blurry because of the moisture. Fortunately, I am a digital native, and I can touch-type on a touchscreen reasonably well with my eyes closed nonetheless. Autocorrect and a future editing pass will fix any errors.
(Yes, I do almost all my writing on a phone. I prefer it that way.)
There. Now they're drying up, and I'm slightly embarrassed for being maudlin. I am rarely given to sentiment, and I hope you will forgive me for this momentary lapse.
I asked him how well the job paid. Well enough to be worth it, he told me. He quoted a figure that was not very far from my then monthly salary of INR 76,000 (about $820 today). Whatever he made there, I noted that I had made about the same while working as an actual doctor in India in earlier jobs (as I've said, this gig paid well, better than previous jobs I'd had and many I had later).
He expected a decent bump - personal drivers seemed to be paid slightly better than commercial operators. I do not know if he was being hired by a well-off individual directly or through an agency. Probably the latter, if I had to guess, less hassle that way.
I asked him if he had ever worked similar roles in India. He said he had. He had made a tenth the money, in conditions far worse than what he would face in Qatar. He, like many other people I interviewed, viewed the life you have the luxury of considering inhumane and unpalatable, and deemed it a strict improvement to the status quo. He was eager to be back. He was saddened that his son would continue growing up in his absence, but he was optimistic that the boy would understand why his father did what he had to do.
One of the reasons this struck me so hard then, as it continues to do now, is that my own father had done much the same. I will beat myself with a rusty stick before I claim he was an absentee dad, but he was busy, only able to give his kids less time than he would have liked because he was busy working himself ragged to ensure our material prosperity. I love him, and hope this man's son - now probably in middle school - will also understand. I do not have to go back more than a single generation before hitting ancestors who were also rural peasants, albeit with more and better land than could be found in an impoverished corner of Bihar.
By moving to the Middle East, he was engaged in arbitrage that allowed him to make a salary comparable to the doctor seeing him in India. I look at how much more I make after working in the NHS and see a similar bump.
I just have the luxury of capturing my wage premium inside a climate-controlled hospital, sleeping in a comfortable bed, and making enough money to fly home on holidays. I try to be grateful for the privilege. I try to give the hedonic treadmill a good kick when it has the temerity to make me feel too bad for myself.
There are many other reasons that people decry the Kafala system other than the perceived poor pay and working conditions. The illegal seizure of passports, employer permission required to switch jobs, accusations of physical abuse and violence are all well-documented, though the link to the 2020 Reuters article claims the system was overhauled and “effectively dismantled”.
I make no firm claims on actual frequency; I have seen nothing with my own two eyes. Nor do I want to exonerate the Qatari government from all accusation. What I will say is that "exploitation" is a word with a definition, and that definition requires something more than "a transaction that takes place under conditions of inequality." If we define exploitation as taking unfair advantage of vulnerability, we need a story about how the worker is made worse off relative to the alternative - and the workers I spoke with, consistently and across months, told me the opposite story. They are not passive victims of false consciousness. They are adults making difficult tradeoffs under difficult constraints, the same tradeoffs that educated Westerners make constantly but with much less margin for error and no safety net.
The people who know best still queued up for hours in the hopes of returning, and I am willing to respect them as rational actors following their incentives. I will not dictate to them what labor conditions they are allowed to consider acceptable while sitting on a comfy armchair.
I do not recall ever outright rejecting an applicant for a cause that couldn't be fixed, but even the occasional instances where I had to turn them away and ask them to come back after treatment hurt. Both of us - there was often bargaining and disappointment that cut me to the bone. I do not enjoy making people sad, even if my job occasionally demands that of me. I regret making them spend even more of their very limited money and time on followups and significant travel expenses, even if I was duty-bound to do so on occasion. We quit that job soon; you might find it ironic that we did so because of poor working conditions and not moral indignation or bad pay. I do, though said irony only strikes me now, in retrospect.
Returning to the man I spoke about, I found nothing of concern, and I would have been willing to look the other way for anything that did not threaten to end his life or immediately terminate his employment. I stamped the necessary seals on his digital application form, accepted his profuse thanks, and wished him well. I meant it. I continue meaning it.
(If you so please, please consider liking the article and subscribing to my Substack. I get no financial gain out of it at present, but it looks good and gives me bragging rights. Thank you.)