I am living with the outcome of government and opposition policy to offshore jobs and to encourage skilled migration.

Background: In 1992 one in four dollars spent in IT was spent by Telstra, since the early 1990s most organizations that employed large numbers of programmers have outsourced their IT departments which has led to higher costs, less flexibility and less control over their information.

Alexander Downer was reported in the HeraldSun in Dec 2001 as saying let the IT jobs go to India as IT salaries in Australia are too high. News flash: IT graduates start on $35000 per annum. IT project managers claim Indian programmers often bill multiple projects and “can’t work in an iron lung”
On 2nd August, Sharan Burrowes, President ACTU, said that she was in favour of offshoring jobs when the costs for telcos were lower but not if skills were lost.

Since 2000 only 20% of IT graduates from the top universities could get jobs in IT but this was easily disguised because Australian government statistics don’t have a category for IT graduates, they are counted as science, business or engineering graduates. Universities are not going to tell fee-paying students that their employment prospects are bleak.

The Australian government paid the Australian Graduate School of Management $12 million per annum to investigate the IT skills shortage.

There is evidence to suggest that labour hire companies get higher fees from placing migrants on visas in jobs rather than local hires.

Professional engineers appear to be in the same situation. Australia’s skill base is being eroded and its such a waste to burden people with long years of study and debt they can’t pay off!

The OECD country survey 31-7-06 views the workforce participation rates of Nordic countries as best practice and Australia has 50% lower rates for older workers.

Last month, the OECD published the standardised unemployment statistics for its member countries:
Australia - 4.9%
Denmark - 3.9%
Finland - 7.6%
France - 8.8%
Germany - 8.9%
Netherlands - 3.9%
Norway - 3.7%
Sweden - 6.5%
As the name suggests, these statistics are calculated on standard criteria. However, as the author noted, these can easily be distorted by the number of discouraged workers and the number of workers on disability pensions. Furthermore, Germany's unemployment may still be heavily influenced by its reunification. With that said, the statistics suggest that some Nordic countries have very low unemployment, other have higher than average unemployment.

I'd like to commend the author for accurately describing the working of the Scandinvaian of social democracy. It is not a work-optional society. As was noted in this weeks Economist, both Denmark and the Netherlands struggled with unemployment until they introduced relatively aggressive work-to-welfare/training legislation.

On the issue of investment in people, Denmark, Sweden and Holland all have extensive and long-standing school voucher programs that have proven to be highly effective. School choice and school vouchers in particular have been vehemently opposed by the Australian left.

I point to these issues to illustrate that the apparent success of the Nordic model cannot be used as an endorsement for the Australian left. Providing the best quality education to all should not a left-right issue and clearly work, not government hand-outs, is the best means to ensure prosperity.

In response to Daniel06,
Many of the points you raise re the short-sightedness and long-term problems with mistreating good employees can be reconciled with the recent IR reforms. As you quite rightly point out, market forces and commercial necessity will protect the vast majority of good employees even in the absence of strict regulation. Furthermore, the new regime will afford protection to employees who take a punt on the long-term unemployed and the young. The IR reforms should only be of detriment to bad employees who are now easier to dismiss.

I think in many ways, it's apples and oranges. Just from my own experiences of travelling, I don't think I'd want to live in any European country, including Scandinavian. They all live in apartments the size of dog boxes, own nothing, and rely on the state far too much. I know everyone touts Sweden and Finland as having really high standards of living, but it just doesn't seem that way to me. I'd like to see a "Dog Box vs Quarter Acre Block Index".

It also seems to me that whilst there's a lot less inequality, there's a lot less social mobility and entrepreneurship at the individual level, which seems indicative of Europe in general. That doesn't seem particularly appealing to me.

Also, it's worth pointing out that these countries have smaller populations that are homogenous and there is a massive market (Europe) on their doorsteps for their high end products and services. So, it's considerably easier to occupy that niche.

Shorbe, some of your points are valid but you are dead wrong in saying that the Nordics have lower social mobility. If you read the literature (summarised in my recent discussion paper on Equality of Opportunity in Australia, April 2006), you will find that the US and UK lag well behind the Nordic countries on income mobility. And the main reason is that the Nordics spend heavily on social investment to equalise education, health, housing and employment opportunities.

The GINI index measures economic equality within countries and some examples are: Denmark 25,Sweden 25,Norway 26,Finland 27, Germany 28, Austria 30, Netherlands 31, Australia 35, Ireland 36, U.K. 36, U.S.A.47 (The lower the figure,the more equal).
The Forbes overall tax burden index or Misery score is: Denmark 121, Sweden 151, Norway 132, Finland 127, Germany 130, Austria 144, Netherlands 123, Australia 98, Ireland 90, U.K. 111, U.S.A. 116. Australia, Ireland and the U.K. seem to be doing OK all round.
Is Fred Argy answering a question that nobody asked?

freddy: What's that mobility worth though if you're taxed into oblivion by the government and you ultimately don't own anything (especially the place you live)? I personally don't consider that a high standard of living, even if the Scandinavian governments do pump a heap of money into health and education.

That's why I want the Dog Box vs Quarter Acre Block Index. I know things are far from perfect here (especially regarding current levels of personal debt, the affordability of housing compared to the past, etc.), but if you ultimately owe your high standard of living to the benevolent hand of the state, then it's a bit of an illusion I think because what it gives with one hand, it takes with the other.