A young muscular Caucasian man tried their hardest to communicate to the staff at the ticket sales counter with his broken English. He was trying to confirm his bus going home from London's Victoria Coach Terminal to his home in Romania. It was his first time returning home from England for Christmas, and he was frantically asking me directions to his boarding gate as he dragged his massive bags across the crowded station. For millions like him, working on the other side of Europe for a higher wage, even as manual laborer (e.g. this Romanian is a construction worker), was made possible by the Europe cutting down border controls and treating other EU citizens as equals in every EU member state.
A British citizen would remark that a presence of people like the young Romanian here is a reason for depressed wages, as the Eastern Europeans are willing to work harder for fewer pounds than the British. And with a few observations on the road, the traveler can confidently say that the effect felt by individuals through the process of European integration has been one of obvious tension. And the tension is especially high when it comes to non-EU citizens residing in one of the EU countries. The benefits of European integration often also extend to these non-EU citizens, in sometimes quite dubious manner.
For instance, at the ferry terminal in Oslo, a middle-aged Ugandan man, who gained permanent residency in Norway through political asylum (in a way quite reminiscent of the exhibition at the Nobel Peace Center), was asking for a cruise ticket to Sweden for a "vacation"...He frankly told me that he is living off social welfare from the Norwegian government and he not worked for, well, quite a long time. Upon hearing about how cheap the tickets are, he quietly but excitedly told me, "haha, its like staying on a moving hotel for free."
Two problems can be thought of in such a situation: (1) obviously, Norwegian (for that matter, all European) political asylum system need a bit of rethinking on exactly who really deserves political asylum and who does not, and more importantly and relevant for this topic, (2) is it not a bit awkward, to say the least, that the social welfare benefits, paid for the taxpayers of one country, is, due to lack of border restrictions, going so easily to another country as tourism revenues. There has to be some sort of exceptions that need to be made concerning what is appropriate within the framework of a "common market."
Maybe I am over-thinking this issue and being a little paranoid. That are, after all, plenty of instances that integration has led to increase in human exchange for positive reasons. In a Swedish hotel, there is a Finnish student just flying in for a day to check out the dorm that he will live in starting next school year as a Masters student in a Swedish university. The ranks of winter travelers are filled with Germans, Italians, and even Ukrainians as they transit for tourism and commuting to work in a neighboring European country.
Yet, on the flip side, even in these exchanges perceived to be "good," there are winners and losers, and for some of the losers, they are consistently losing. Many Europeans travel for the sake of seeking cheaper alternatives to their own countries. Here in Tallinn, Estonia, for instance, hostel dorm beds cost 9 Euros whereas the same would cost about 25 in Sweden. The same goes for food, alcohol, all sorts of services, and perhaps even higher education. As their own citizens move freely to other European states to take advantages of cheaper costs, the industries back in their native lands are bound to suffer.
Indeed, speaking from a strictly economic sense, a "common market" is bound to eventually converge on one single price for the same commodity or service across different geographical regions. For places where prices remain high for strictly logistical reasons (e.g. Norway), people can simply move out to seek cheaper lives, forcing employers to raise wages to retain employees. In such cases, young workers from poorer parts of Europe may stream in to take advantage of the high wages, but minimizing their expenditures within the country in order to maximize the amount of remittance sent back home.
Either way, basic economic reasoning would point to a darker future for countries on the more expensive end of the EU. Yes, they can keep key industries (like energy in Norway) alive with high wages, but unrestricted travel means that the employees can easily consume the bulk of their wages outside of the countries where they work. The services sector in the high-wage country would wither despite the high wages and a youthful immigrant population. Quite a paradox that perhaps the proponents of European integration should think a little more deeply about...
A British citizen would remark that a presence of people like the young Romanian here is a reason for depressed wages, as the Eastern Europeans are willing to work harder for fewer pounds than the British. And with a few observations on the road, the traveler can confidently say that the effect felt by individuals through the process of European integration has been one of obvious tension. And the tension is especially high when it comes to non-EU citizens residing in one of the EU countries. The benefits of European integration often also extend to these non-EU citizens, in sometimes quite dubious manner.
For instance, at the ferry terminal in Oslo, a middle-aged Ugandan man, who gained permanent residency in Norway through political asylum (in a way quite reminiscent of the exhibition at the Nobel Peace Center), was asking for a cruise ticket to Sweden for a "vacation"...He frankly told me that he is living off social welfare from the Norwegian government and he not worked for, well, quite a long time. Upon hearing about how cheap the tickets are, he quietly but excitedly told me, "haha, its like staying on a moving hotel for free."
Two problems can be thought of in such a situation: (1) obviously, Norwegian (for that matter, all European) political asylum system need a bit of rethinking on exactly who really deserves political asylum and who does not, and more importantly and relevant for this topic, (2) is it not a bit awkward, to say the least, that the social welfare benefits, paid for the taxpayers of one country, is, due to lack of border restrictions, going so easily to another country as tourism revenues. There has to be some sort of exceptions that need to be made concerning what is appropriate within the framework of a "common market."
Maybe I am over-thinking this issue and being a little paranoid. That are, after all, plenty of instances that integration has led to increase in human exchange for positive reasons. In a Swedish hotel, there is a Finnish student just flying in for a day to check out the dorm that he will live in starting next school year as a Masters student in a Swedish university. The ranks of winter travelers are filled with Germans, Italians, and even Ukrainians as they transit for tourism and commuting to work in a neighboring European country.
Yet, on the flip side, even in these exchanges perceived to be "good," there are winners and losers, and for some of the losers, they are consistently losing. Many Europeans travel for the sake of seeking cheaper alternatives to their own countries. Here in Tallinn, Estonia, for instance, hostel dorm beds cost 9 Euros whereas the same would cost about 25 in Sweden. The same goes for food, alcohol, all sorts of services, and perhaps even higher education. As their own citizens move freely to other European states to take advantages of cheaper costs, the industries back in their native lands are bound to suffer.
Indeed, speaking from a strictly economic sense, a "common market" is bound to eventually converge on one single price for the same commodity or service across different geographical regions. For places where prices remain high for strictly logistical reasons (e.g. Norway), people can simply move out to seek cheaper lives, forcing employers to raise wages to retain employees. In such cases, young workers from poorer parts of Europe may stream in to take advantage of the high wages, but minimizing their expenditures within the country in order to maximize the amount of remittance sent back home.
Either way, basic economic reasoning would point to a darker future for countries on the more expensive end of the EU. Yes, they can keep key industries (like energy in Norway) alive with high wages, but unrestricted travel means that the employees can easily consume the bulk of their wages outside of the countries where they work. The services sector in the high-wage country would wither despite the high wages and a youthful immigrant population. Quite a paradox that perhaps the proponents of European integration should think a little more deeply about...
Comments
Post a Comment