All is quiet on the German front ...?

On July 31, German police discovered two home-made bombs in the train stations of Dortmund and Koblenz. Later they closed the train station in Kiel and arrested a Lebanese student in connection with these attempts at terror.

What is remarkable about these events is, alas, not so much the fact that they happened, nor the connection with Lebanon. What struck me, however, is the relative indifference with which both German and Dutch media have reported the news. The mood in Germany is very much to get on with the business of the day. I have not seen (yet?) any scare-mongering or panicky publications about the fact that Islamist terorrism has reached Teutonia. I am not the only one noticing this.

In a way, that is exactly as it should be: the Germans don't give these terorrists what they so desparately want, i.e., attention, panic and terror... Compare this to the absolute spastic way in which the USA responded to their home-grown would-be terrorists. Apparently, Germany has learned in the 70s how to live with constant terrorism (from the RAF) and taken an alert, but otherwise relaxed attitude.

I wonder if they will keep it up...

French assets

Just back from a nice holiday in the South of France (very hot -- thank you). There I saw something that explained a lot to me about the mind set of our Francophone fellow-Europeans. But first some background.

In 1995 a Wallon (i.e. French-speaking Belgian) political theorist, Philippe van Parijs, published a book entitled Real Freedom for All. In it, he defended the old idea of an unconditional basic income: everybody from the age of 18, is entitled to a regular grant, regardless of financial situation, family circumstances, domicile or willingness to work. There is a lot to be said in favor of this proposal; there is a lot to be said against it.

In making his argument, Van Parijs critically relies on the idea that jobs, waged labor, are assets, in much the way that oil wells, inheritance or access to the internet are assets. We need not go into the details as to why. What is striking is the idea that jobs are assets in that sense: having a job is like manna from heaven. What you do with these assets is up to you. At the time I was really surprised why somebody could even think this up. After all, aren't jobs simple contracts of exchange between an employer and employee? Doesn't a prospective employee have to put in time and energy to get one (i.e., apply, train herself into certain skills, etc.). Similarly, an employer has to devote time and energy to find the best candidate for the job. So there is nothing manna-like about jobs. Also the rewards of a job (wages, fun, recognition) are things you get as a result of you putting in effort. So why think of a job as an asset? To be sure, Van Parijs gives many arguments as to why they are to be treated as assets, but I never understood how you could get that idea in the first place.

Then I saw in Le-Grau-du-Roi (Gard) a container where people can deposit their old clothing. The reveneus of these collections goes to good causes. Usually then, there is a sign that says what the good cause is to which you donation goes. On the container in front of the 'SuperU' there was a sign that said: "you donation gives employment to four". I was completely flabbergasted. So the point of my donation is to give other people work? The 'gift' is the gift of waged labor? Having a job is a gift for which the recipients ought to be grateful?

But then I remembered the riots in the Banlieus and the general strike againt Mr. De Villepin's proposal to make it easier for employers to hire and fire young people in their first job. I remembered how commentators said that the highest aspiration for an educated young person in France is a job as a civil servant, since you are guaranteed a good income and provided you don't commit a terrible crime, you will never get fired and make automatic 'career'. In that context, it is understandable why a job is a gift: it comes with all these certainties, such that once you are in, you are settled for life. Given that more than 25% of the young people are unemployed and stand little chance to get such an apportunity, the sign becomes more plausible. In such a place, jobs are precious assets which you ought to cherish and envy.

And that explains why Van Parijs -a francophone after all- had the intuition that jobs are assets. It is an intuition that is shared by all French.