I disagree with Vivian that he is paying the migrant worker a fair wage. If the worker cannot subsist on the wage and lives on the streets or slums in Goa, was it a fair living wage? In these cases the Goan taxpayer is really footing the bill of the indirect social costs of the rampant migrant population which Vivian supports. Which means the Goan taxpayer is paying for cutting Vivian's lawn. Many years ago, Goan labourers were able to subsist on their income, and did not live on the streets and in slums (there were no Dharavi style slums we see in Goa today).
I also disagree with those who suggest the bogus idea "nature abhors a vacuum" as an explanation why Goa has a large migrant population. Take the Konkan railway trains. More migrants are coming in than native Goans leaving, hence which "vacuum" are they filling? In fact, they have come to support illegal activity (mega-projects). Most of the units in the illegal mega-projects are sold to non-Goans. Do the "nature abhors a vacuum proponents" support illegal activity (mega-projects)? As for Frederick's "Goan exclusionary" article, I don't think I can get through all the straw men and red herrings he raises to respond now, perhaps later. George
