Labour

While I was secretly happy with the cheap labour around the world and the declining price of laptop computer over the years, our famous alumni mentioned in the morning paper that our city is short of construction site workers and, as there are so many infrastructure projects along the pipeline, the government should encourage the younger generation to join.

(See http://hkm.appledaily.com/Home/ShowArticle/ed3d2fb0-f8cf-4406-a9e8-c2ea09366ee8)

I must say my feeling is ambivalent.

Yes, on one hand, a frothy (alas, no bubble) property market and prolific infrastructure projects would not only boost the local economy but create jobs - with a reasonable pay, as pointed out by our famous alumni - for many semi-skilled workers. After all, not everyone in the society is suitable for a university education, and, one of the major difficulties of a modern government is to find a means for them to earn a living and have a subsistence with dignity.

(By the way, that's exactly the mistake of some Mr Tung: an intellectual type of economy could never improve the life of the majority - which, by definition, does not have the intelligence.)

Yet, on the other hand, putting up too much emphasis on bricks and buildings almost always means tearing down some good old public memory or inevitable damage to the environment.

And, the worst bit is, it's really the opium of economy: If a large proportion of the working population earn their living by being construction site workers, as soon as the property market turns bubble and bursts, the crowd would roar and press the government to put up more projects on rail or highway - so that they could continue to earn their salt.

That actually happened once shortly after 1997. Don't you remember ?