[Translated from Dagbladet's political weblog.]

It doesn't take much to bring out the national egotist in a Norwegian. Beneath a layer of communitarianism and social conscience the egotist lies in hiding. The egotist is smart. He has learned that you no longer can say "I want to have, give me now", you have to dress it up in the correct ideological terminology. This is rarely more obvious than when we talk about outsourcing, global trade and import of labor.

The egotist can no longer say "I want that job instead of those filthy Poles, and I want to get better paid too". He must say "those unfortunate Poles are being exploited by cynical employers", while he calls for an end to social dumping. No longer can he say "my cow deserves more in subsidies than much of the world has to live on, because it's Norwegian". He must talk about protecting developing food industries, preserving the environment, and the importance of a living and diverse Norwegian agricultural sector.

Nationalist egotism is thus sold as an extension of social democracy. To make this possible you need to redefine a couple of words. Solidarity with workers is quietly redefined as solidarity with Norwegian workers, (for they're the only ones who matter). Trade is redefined as coercion, so we can pretend that our tariffs and subsidies are really meant to protect the world's poor from our own greed.

The hypocrisy of all this is not that social democrats are skeptical of global free trade, for they are skeptical of all free trade, but that their rhetorics of solidarity conceal a double standard: One for Norwegians, and another for everyone else. In Norway we must defend the poor from the rich, and discourage inequality. Globally we must protect the rich from the poor, so they don't steal our jobs.

Social democrats see the global economy as a zero sum game, where more for foreigners means less for us. That is why LO and Labor oppose what they refer to as social dumping, not because they want to be nice to foreigners. It just sounds a little prettier when they say it.

I have come to believe fundamentalism in all its forms is dangerous, whether it be in the religous or political and economic areas.

It is dangerous on one hand to protect the Norwegian workers from Polish workers, because we in that way ensure that our own businesses are not competetive.
On the other hand, it might be dangerous to totally disregard the individuals (perhaps many many individuals) being affected by such a change of atmosphere, that is, loosing their jobs.
I think the way to go is to find a way where you minimize the number of individuals being affected by this in the short-term, perhaps in a kind of transition phase, but yet allow for free trade in employment opportunities in the long term, to help local companies stay competetive.

Its just silly to think we can stay in a bubble of everlasting prosperity if we are not letting our companies compete in the same manner as foreign companies, be it employment of people or other policies. Besides, I also think that business leaders have lost their voice in this debate, for instance, if they have a choice, I think they will employ local workers, in order to help their country in the ways they can.

Is the outsourcing done in pure solidarity?
I don't think so. Rather in search of higher profits (through lower wages, lower environment safety standards, etc.) It's not all black and white of course, it depends on each case. For example here
an outsourced worker, who has had the job for more than three months (=better wage), for Porsgrunn porseleen says "the wage is OK". The one-day workers are being paid below minimum wage in Bangladesh though.

And Allan, this particular outsourcing was done (accoring to NRK) despite profits with only Norwegian workers.

Also... Erik Reinert has written a book :
"Global Economy. How the rich got rich and why the poor are getting poorer." (review)

Allan: On the other hand, it might be dangerous to totally disregard the individuals (perhaps many many individuals) being affected by such a change of atmosphere, that is, loosing their jobs.

Sure. What's important is that we stop seeing these things as problems, but as the cost of continual economic progress. Something we should help affected workers overcome, but not by preventing the process as such.

Ivar: Is the outsourcing done in pure solidarity?

Of course not. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

The point is that importing Polish labor - even for selfish reasons - is good for Poles. It's also good for us, because it allows us to have the same work carried out at a lower price. We get richer, they get richer.

"The point is that importing Polish labor - even for selfish reasons - is good for Poles. It's also good for us, because it allows us to have the same work carried out at a lower price. We get richer, they get richer."

Who do you mean by 'we' here? The norwegian employer?

Allan: Who do you mean by 'we' here? The norwegian employer?

Actually the customers. They're made richer by having to spend less for construction work.

Do you think there should be any limits to the use of cheap labor at home? What's going to be left for Norwegian workers to do? High-tech jobs and jobs that require language skills (I guess a cashier job would fall into that category)?

"Actually the customers. They're made richer by having to spend less for construction work."
According to Ivar, they were already earning money, that hardly implies that they would put down the prices with cheaper labour.

Ivar:
Norwegian workers will have jobs to do.. When people have more money to use, they will use them somewhere else, creating new markets for Norwegian workers.

Bjørn: Actually the customers. They're made richer by having to spend less for construction work.

Do you have any statistics to back this up?
I think at the moment the "middle man" is taking the profit from the use of cheap labor (ie, it's not resulting in cheaper houses).

The whole idea of Bjørn's (how-do-you-say?) article poses a dilemma (traditionally called the liberal dilemma). Indeed, I like the thought that Polish workers (in Poland, you have about 20% unemployment) are allowed to make money. But; what about the Norwegian workers that will not get the job? You can of course say that they get richer because of the cheap labour they can hire to fix their houses, but what happens when the scenario, like in Germany or Denmark, is a stage where the Danish or German workers are unable to get a job because the Poles will in all eventualities be cheaper?

You can of course say that the (jobless) Norwegian workers will be paid by the welfare state, and that they should be happy and eventually get some more education.

But; what if this is what they planned to do all their lives, the job they have been wanting for a long time, is moved because they cost too much to hire?

Is it okay to break some eggs to make a "global omelette" or do we have a problem when people who are educated to do a certain job cannot do it because the jobs are moved to a cheaper place? And second, of course, who earns money from this?

1) This is a difficult question. In the Hayek/neo-liberal theory (which Bjørn Stærk, for some strange reason, identifies with the Progress Party (nation socialists/Christian fundamentalist idiotics party), this is something that is bound to happen.
2) The capitalists will of course earn money from this. The people who already have a load will have more, because they are the ones who already have everything set up to hire the Polish workers, while the average worker will not be able to pay for the Polish workers, especially if the worker is a worker who has lost his job opportunities because of the cheap Polish labour.

So what is the solution? In my opinion, there will be some broken eggs. But I still wonder how mr. Stærk is going to say to the electrician or painter eye-to-eue who loses his work: "sorry man, you're just too expensive. Accept the poverty." Because somebody is bound to loose. And they will usually vote for mr. Stærk's favourite party, the national socialists in the Progress Party. "protect the Norwegian culture, no more immigration, cheap labour but don't settle down before you are white and can sing the National Anthem."

So... I would like a bit of solution from mr. Stærk (it's easy to be critical, but maybe at some time you should give some meat to the ideological skeleton). I have (as a right-wing liberalist) a certain number of doubts about the Hayek method. Or about anything as simple and narrow-minded as the economic theory where numbers and words are everything, and people nothing.

Tell me.

I don't think the norwgian electrician is threatened by extinction, for a number of reasons, but even if this horror scenario comes true: Is it really so bad?
We don't have many shoe factory workers in this country any more either.
Are they occupying the welfare offices or have they found other things to do for a living?

あ亜

Seems you have gotten some attention on PeeWee's blog, Bjørn.

http://www.utilitarianpolitics.com/blogg/index.php?post=4

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1567