Norway, immigrants and social generosity

It was only a matter of time before something happened in generally generous Scandinavia. The system there is a model for many people, who - sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes intentionally - overlook its defects, which in the long run send the countries there to the bottom.

Norwegian "shooter" Breivik
Norwegian "shooter" Breivik

After the tragedy in Norway again, the issue of immigration came to the surface, but from a slightly different side than we are now used to.

A bomb exploded in Oslo, and an aggressor shot several dozen people at a gathering of young Social Democrat supporters. The report would not (unfortunately) be very interesting in recent years if:

  1. the event did not take place in Scandinavia, "social democratic paradise"
  2. the aggressor and main suspect in the bombing was not a blond conservative Christian, a Norwegian, but a Muslim immigrant.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the core of the immigrant problems that are collapsing the multi-cult dream of many European political leaders does not lie with immigrants themselves. We have probably built the core of this problem ourselves.

In principle, it is actually simple, and we in the Czech Republic know it here as well. We just don't have immigrants, we have Roma.

Let's go back a decade, for example - to the USA. At that time, there was no social system, nor was there an immigrant problem. The former States offered immigrants the opportunity to freely pursue their happiness. No one will stand in your way, but you have full responsibility for yourself. The immigrant arrived in the states and had to start brandishing.

How to make a living? Where to live? What about children?

If you work and earn a living yourself, you will get in touch with different people. Immigrants may learn local language (English in the former USA), form social ties, take the reins in their own hands.

That's how Milton Friedman's parents started like this. Sure, it doesn't have to work. However, no one guaranteed that this would happen.

The cost of labor is usually low for an immigrant. No one "local" knows who they are, what they can do. He often does not know the language.

Work? Not for you.

It is not very nice to work for a wage salary, but it is better than nothing. It can be a good springboard, at least through ties, making contacts ("friends"), learning a language and gaining experience with local customs.

But then it comes clever politicianThat claims to employ you for such a poor wage is exploitation. He will tell you that he will protect you and set you up minimum wage.

As a low-cost immigrant, you will lose your job. And you won't find new ones anymore.

To have something to eat, you will find refuge in the social benefits system. Because you do not work, you do not make contacts between locals and you have no way to learn the language. You will create a community of others like you - a community of immigrants. You will be connected by area of ​​origin, religion, whatever.

You make money for nothing. This is quite nice, so many acquaintances from your homeland will come to you - to live on social benefits. In general, benefit recipients will become an interesting voter group, so through the social system, politicians will start buying votes to vote.

Of course, more people dependent on benefits will burden the budget, which will lead to higher taxes (today or in the future). Whatever the taxes, you pay for them, "normal person".

Be taxed directly work (income tax, state social insurance), thus losing the employee. Wages are determined by supply and demand - taxes do not increase the price (price is not made up of costs), but they reduce the employee's profit.

Or is anything else taxed - taxes are paid by companies, but from money by whom? From customers' money. Lower profits = lower investment = less jobs and capital.

As everyone will feel the greater burden on the expenditure side of the budget, "benefit immigrants" will become the target of hatred for those who become poor because of those taxes. Many entrepreneurs would employ immigrants.

They can't, because of the minimum wage. However, it must pay them, through the social system.

Hatred from the neighborhood will close your community. From here, it is only a step towards violence from both sides. On the one hand, we often see it in France, on the other hand, we have now seen it in Norway.

And with us? Instead of immigrants, take the Roma. The result will be the same.

Let's take politics!

It was only a matter of time before something happened in generally generous Scandinavia. The system there is a model for many people, who - sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes intentionally - overlook its defects, which in the long run send the countries there to the bottom.

The problem is not in the immigrants (or in our country in the Roma) themselves. Those who fight against immigrants themselves see the problem, but do not see its roots.

The problem is in the social system, the culprits are the politicians who created it. For every damage caused by the looting of immigrants in France and for every death from an attack similar to the one in Norway, let us blame them.

0 comments

  1. That the hamba isn't beating you on the floor, putting nonsense here that you wouldn't even invent.

  2. Of course, politicians can do a lot of things. If they hadn't looked at each other since the beginning and hadn't just stolen from themselves, the citizens of this world would have a good time everywhere. I've been alone with children for many years, and I can't give them what I want or at least it had what they deserve. So far I have worked as a slave and I have nothing but gypsies have it, I don't know how people do it? Yes, I'm thinking of another country, but if you don't know the language and don't know anyone there, I can only work hard. does not apply in today's world.

  3. @ Envel:

    Maybe I didn't say it exactly. This "clean, unwritten paper" was meant for evil, for susceptibility to violence.
    Of course, there are genetic predispositions.

    In another discussion, this was also discussed, where I wrote: “What I have understood so far, during childhood, is created, for example, the capacity to delay satisfaction, the capacity to love, the ability to empathize and all these" good "qualities that can prevent evil. All this is formed in the family and then in the school environment. "

    And as for education. A great progress would be the wider application of rational, consistent and peaceful education, together with the elimination of public education. Which presupposes the elimination of the two greatest and most harmful irrationalities in the world today - the state and organized religion. I believe that in the future we will at least get closer to such a state and the world will be unrecognizable as a result - no wars and a minimum of violence… Isn't that what we all want?

  4. @ Basket:
    Tabula rasa is a well-known principle, but as far as I know, so untrue. Respectively, not entirely accurate, so as not to offend anyone. You are partly influenced by the genes of your parents, partly only by being human (ie also genes), at the same time you are influenced, for example, by how your mother felt mentally in (your) prenatal period. And of course also how people around you felt during your life (this could already be included in education, in any case it quite fits into the concept of "tabula rasa"). In fact, this means that in order to avoid frustration that could result in violence, you must ensure that everyone is happy that parents do not pass on the frustration of a (for example, marital) rift to their children.
    In addition, you would have to suppress instincts and ensure that they never show. For example, the instinct of self-preservation can manifest itself in the way that when you do not have food, you steal it and calmly hit someone. Ergo's life-threatening feeling is aggressive and can lead to violence.

    In my opinion, such goals are unrealistic, moreover, envy, vanity would have to be removed… which would be great, we will certainly agree on that, but how to achieve it? How to motivate people to want a better job, position, but at the same time not to envy those who are more successful?

  5. @Novel
    Thanks!

    There was a discussion on Facebook somewhere about this article, where I have already said this:

    The problem is not the communities themselves, but the motives on the basis of which the environment forms an opinion on these communities (and subsequently the reaction of the community), when the social system creates an obligation for one to pay the other, which creates problems.

    Of course, let the community be closed, let them not know the language, let them do what they want voluntarily. That's not a problem. The problem is if politicians take advantage of the situation and start compensating immigrants for the (alleged) losses that the immigrants have made voluntarily, by their own decision. Then a social system is created that creates tragedies…

  6. @meca:
    Axioms and deductions belong to logic. You work with them yourself - you present arguments and the very fact of argumentation is based on the principles of logic, which are given and undeniable. Any attempt to challenge these principles confirms them. Therefore, Kuhn's view of the development of science cannot be applied to logic. Positivism and relativism are equally contradictory, because both presuppose some non-relative laws that cannot be verified by empirical experience.

    @ Lukáš:
    Good article. I think that immigrant communities would be formed in all circumstances, even in the absence of social policy - see, for example, a relatively closed community of Vietnamese who certainly do not live on social benefits. I don't see it in that, but no problem.
    It is also worth noting that the problem of immigration would not exist at all if there were no public property. Then no one would simply get anywhere where no one would care for him.

  7. to meca: A free society presupposes only a change in moral values, more precisely a universalization of the non-aggression principle. That is all. And such a societal change is slow, but it has happened several times in history, see. slavery eventually became immoral and would probably never return, women gained equal rights, etc. I am sure that the state will eventually also be considered immoral in the future, if it is in 100, 200 years, hard to say.

    Ad human essence: What I have learned so far from psychology, children are born as clean, unwritten paper, they are innocent, neither bad nor good. The most important is the development from birth to 5-6 years, when the brain develops and grows and when the future personality is created. Or the family environment has a huge impact on whether a person will be peaceful or violent, and it is in the area of ​​parenthood that there are still huge gaps, so I focus a lot on raising children, among other things.

    "You will never convince everyone of your faith, you will never convince me, and therefore you will have to kill me…" - I am not forcing anything on anyone, I am just convinced that violence is immoral and no one should have a right to it. So if you support the state, you support violence against me, and if I defend myself, you will have to kill me.

    "He simplified and tarnished the 20th century, as did the fall of the Roman Empire."
    Please? How did he get lost? Don't you think the 170 million? And what do you think is the main cause of the fall of the Roman Empire?

  8. A terrible utopia - and if you put it in front of you as an absolute goal, as an absolute truth, it will inevitably degenerate and become violent. I don't know how you imagine the human nature, but I know too many people who are simply not good - and I'm sure it's not worth it. See so many civil wars! A war for something. How do you want to remove it?

    Maybe it could go the way of Kuhn: those examples with physics are nice, it's Kuhn's paradigm shift, when if the old one just doesn't fit anymore, it is corrected until SOMEONE COMES WITH THE NEW one. Yes, you came. Something like a world without a state and you believe it, like those with matches, believed that the Earth is in the center. And like me, I believe you're grinding DANGEROY shit now. But the point is that physics is dealt with by a relatively small circle of people who stand on the same basis, have read the same books and are based on them. That's why it's so hard to convince myself that I'm right if my name is Copernicus. (Let it seem clearer to us today.) And perhaps it is clear why a unified paradigm does not permeate any social science: everyone talks about it, whether they read this or that or read nothing. You will never convince everyone of your faith, you will never convince me, and therefore you will have to kill me…

    And history is just matter that everyone models, although the responsible historian at least strives for objectivity - the ideologue simplifies it. They simplified and tarnished the 20th century, as did the fall of the Roman Empire.

  9. to meca: I think we care about libertarians in the world and in people as no one else, and that is why we most often argue against the greatest evil that humanity has encountered - a State that is slowly but surely leading society to collapse, as in the fall of Rome empire (very instructive history).

    I know that this is a bold statistic, but I think it needs to be constantly reminded: in the 20th century alone, an estimated 170 million people were murdered by their own governments! The main cause of this unreal evil is rooted right in the core of the State, and that is its monopoly on the initiation of violence. But state violence can never solve complex societal problems.

    Can I ask you for your opinion on this video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS6RleRMsdY&feature=channel_video_title

  10. The only axiom is that one acts. When they tried to refute it once, they found that it was impossible. Why?

    Because if we want to refute this axiom… we act and confirm it.

  11. By "mathematical" I don't mean numbers now, but (perhaps a little inaccurately) those axioms and deductions, etc., which all other humanities and social sciences have humbly given up because - because the world and life.

  12. @Meca

    This is funny :))

    My deductive method (a priori) is methodologically based on the Austrian school (economics), whose "protagonists" were and are the biggest critics of the use of mathematics and the "homo oeconomicus" model (Mises writes nicely in Human Action somewhere between 80 and 100) on cognition of reality (simply: mathematics has nothing to do in economics, so a modern macro is nonsense)…

    And you accuse me of what I refuse. 🙂

    I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of other influences here, I'm just saying that the social system and the minimum wage have the effects that I described in the article. The problem with immigrants is, of course, affected by many other circumstances - and what is described in the article is one of them. This is valid if no error can be found in the whole deduction. This does not preclude other effects.

    It is debatable how important a factor is min. salary and soc. system. In my opinion, this is a significant factor (I argue that the cost of immigrants' work - especially from Arab countries - is very low - mainly due to European prejudices, their ignorance of the language and other social problems - they do not ignore the human nature, on the contrary, I have it ).

  13. Well, that's just it - you create a "a priori" system here, and if something doesn't fit into it (especially the human nature, mind, or just what some feel and eventually say and proclaim), you say that it is that's nonsense, of course. I'm not saying at all that you can't have a piece of the truth, I just think over and over that it wants to come out of a beautiful and mathematically functioning model and with a little humility to look at the world…

    But then one can't be very sure of anything, well.

  14. @meca

    I may have written it too complicated, but: the news would not be very "interesting" if the attacker was not a native burrow, but a Muslim. You missed nothing 🙂

    It is a fact that those whose labor cost is lower than the minimum wage will pay unemployment for the introduction of the minimum wage. That is, unskilled, uneducated, minorities (eg immigrants or Roma).

    It is the same as if we set the maximum possible price for the sale of rolls (of any farm) - sellers who would not subsequently be paid to sell the farm would stop selling the farm.

    Everything that follows logically is described in the article. I am no discoverer, it is a well-known and long-described problem.

    That the matter of coexistence of several cultures is a complex issue is certainly true. There are many factors that create problems with immigrants, and yes, social policy, taxation and the minimum wage are one of - I would say - important factors.

    We do not extinguish the house with gasoline. Further expansion of the causes of the problem (ie further taxation, expansion of the social system and increase of the minimum wage) cannot logically help us, on the contrary - it will harm us. It's not hard, try to disprove this logic. This is an a priori derived statement.

    And of course, the fact that "immigrants are taking our jobs" is nonsense.

  15. to meca:

    And do you really think that state violence will solve these complex social problems?

  16. „2. the aggressor and the main suspect in the bombing was not a blond conservative Christian, a Norwegian, but a Muslim immigrant. ”- Did I miss something?

    Plus, of course, it's again a whole article just for laughs. This concept of economics is reminiscent of young people from Duck Donald, who opened the Young Marmot Guide on the site, and the problem has been resolved. Do you really think that such a complex problem as immigration, minors, and everything around it can be solved by removing the minimum wage? Magician!

  17. And to add - thanks to my experience in my neighborhood (as I wrote - I'm from a Roma family, my sister's husband is an immigrant from Africa) I have been questioning the welfare state since I write any articles at all. Generally longer. I was a weird kid, but I was just interested…

    In fact, Breivik's reprehensible act has no major effect on this. It just made me write this article, which I have been wearing in my head for a very long time and is generally aimed at a pan-European context.

  18. @Ales Chmelar

    "How poor immigrants come to Norway"

    And wasn't Breivik primarily concerned with Europe as a whole, but also with France, Britain, Germany and other countries where the problem with immigrants is more than obvious?

    Do I happen to write in the article also about "Czech" Roma, where this problem is also relatively "seen" at first glance (I am from a Roma family)?

    The Scandinavian countries live on the wealth accumulated from the liberal economy, poor relative to others (they consume their wealth) and thanks to a generous social system and massive redistribution. See, for example, Holman's Economics.

    Despite the fact that the use of statistics (which speaks only of past data, not of the future, entrepreneurs speak of the future - see theories of business discovery) for the validation of economic theses is at least problematic - see Mises and other Austrian school methodologists.

  19. And you will also find information about the demand for unskilled labor and find out that Norwegian immigrants need and do not push them from the excess to the middle breast of the state.

    But I don't want to take part in this discussion anymore. That is exactly why Breivik killed almost a hundred people: so that people would start questioning the social state and eventually swearing at minorities in their own state. I will not wish him luck.

  20. About how poor immigrants come to Norway, find out that there is no job for them, because it pays too much for it, so end up in benefits, I would try to publish a book. Maybe fragmenty.cz would definitely give you advice.

    Now seriously. You can really find figures on the proportion of the population living on such a minimum wage (in Scandinavia, not in France and Germany), as well as the percentage of second-generation immigrant unemployment in Scandinavia (not in France or Germany, really in Scandinavia). And then try to write the article again. Pujde to hur. Ideology is a good servant, but a bad master.

  21. @5

    "The fact that the 'invisible hand of the market' will not solve everything, we already knew for ourselves, didn't we?"
    Of course, it won't solve everything. She never even tried. The invisible hand of the market will solve "everything" in the economic sense - ie it will answer the questions "What to produce? Where to produce? For whom to produce ". Nothing more, nothing less.

    Of course, the state is not able to solve this either, let alone anything more.

  22. There is no general minimum wage in Norway, but it is intended for the construction and shipbuilding sectors + there, unions have great power, which distorts the market in a similar way.

    Of course, it is also a generational problem - immigrants after one generation are also problematic and are entitled to benefits…

    @Petrph - why? Watch that video, that's exactly what it's about.

  23. The foundation stone is wrong in that building. Namely, the institute of that minimum wage. The question is why the entrepreneur should pay the immigrant a lower wage than someone else, or less than usual. So, he would like to pay her less, as little as possible, preferably to work for him only for food and sleeping in the barn and also without any security measures and working conditions. relation ships. The fact that the "invisible hand of the market" will not solve everything we already knew ourselves, didn't we? So maybe he won't employ the person for a higher minimum wage. Well, if he doesn't work, he doesn't work and the employee will not bring him the expected profit with his work. If the business is so inefficient that it doesn't even earn the usual price of work, then it probably doesn't make sense

  24. In Norway, immigrants are not entitled to social benefits and there is NO minimum wage.

    The article does not make economic sense, and indeed the form of brainwashing of an intelligent person by right-wing and economically non-rigorous propaganda.

    But if you believe it, I recommend persevering. Repeated myth becomes true. Already now (again the would-be) right-wingers of the world think that people really emigrate due to social benefits. Keep it up. We will all believe it one day.

  25. Guilty are idiots of your type. Friedman's paradise in the USA goes on the drum and Nori are in surplus. Maybe the Norwegian state fund will buy something at this auction.

  26. @Pavel - The Scandinavian countries were once the richest countries in the world with a huge lead over the rest of the world. This was especially the case in the first half of the 20th century, when these countries were liberal economies, ie countries with a minimal state.

    They draw from this wealth to this day, but relatively compared to the rest of the world, despite their initial position as poor…

    I recommend the first two links in the article.

  27. Hello, Your article is unfortunately one of the many clutches of right-wing ballast that appeared after the act of a Norwegian psychopath. The problem is not in the social system, but in immigration policy. Your statement is very funny that "the Nordic countries have defects that… send to the bottom." Denmark, Sweden and Norway are among the most economically developed countries with a high quality of life for these taxes provided by the state for these taxes provided by the state. of the majority of the population and with a political culture that we can only dream of in Bohemia and Moravia. If your role model is the US, go and try working there. I already have this experience. Efforts to dismantle the welfare state, presented in the Czech Republic by neoliberals such as Kalouska, Parala et al. it will lead to nothing but the sharpened social tensions and consequences that result from it - see the history of the Weimar Republic, the crisis in Austria in the 30s, etc. It will be a historical step backwards, accompanied by even greater violence than we are witnessing today. You are young, do not succumb to the brainwashing of some Czech pseudo-politicians who confuse real right-wing politics with stupid budget cuts and the liquidation of social policy. But that is another topic.

Comments are off.