Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Wall Street Journal"
channel.
-
14
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
You have the right idea (like Britain, Germany - wall, all of the wealthy European states). However the Swiss system to my knowledge is private for profit * with a lot of regulations. And I think insurance is mandatory. Private - this may explain why their system is almost as expensive as the US system (around USD 9,000 per capita) ;) . At least the Swiss have coverage for everyone, it has an excellent reputation, and I know that they pay the staff very well (wages are higher in Switzerland to offset the higher cost of living, but even so they are well paid, not only doctors but also nurses etc.) Of course those higher wages also show up in the costs of their healthcare, but then it means also disposable income for middle class consumers.
In Europe the UK (public system, ? tax financed) had in 2014 costs of 3.900 (2nd best worldwide after Japan for a rich country, but they are in trouble, I think they are intentionally underfunded by the conservative governmnent). Most wealthy Europan countries have costs of USD 5.000 to 5.500 (Canada the same).
see per capita healthcare costs World Bank (the data available was for 2014)
* edit: another contributor claims it is private but without profit - whatever, expensive, good and for everyone within the country (that applies to many things Swiss ;)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
* After WW2 until the 70s the workers more or less got their fair share of that improved productivity , wages rose WITH productivity, taxes were much higher (for top earners and profitable corporations) AND were paid. No outsourcing of jobs (because politics entered into "free trade agreements" that made outsourcing possible in the first place)
You can search with "productiviy vs wages" the graphs are very impressive. The one I looked up - 1948 - 1970, the base line is 1948, in that period the Wages and Productivity line is pretty close:
Increase in wages vs. productivity: 93,4 vs. 108,1 (so roughly ! doubled since 1948, the corporations got more than the workers, but still an impressive gain in real average wages.
Since then (1970 - 2013 in that graph) there were further increases:
8,1 % in total for wages and 64,9 for productivity. (that is an US chart, in Germany and Austria the gains in productivity are at least as much if not more - both countries have very competitive export industries).
So on top of the gap of 14,7 % (from 1948 - 1970) which gave the entrepreneurs an advantage and a reward for their input NOW there is an ADDITIONAL GAP of 56,8 % (1970 - 2013).
So in total wages lag behind 71,5 %
In the 70s pressure on wages began. Before the manufacturers had an almost shortage of workers, they had to pay good wages AND to let the workforce participate in the increase of productivity.
That means IF and WHEN the company was more successful or more cost-efficient or whatever, not only the owners of the company got all the profit from that improvement, no the workers because of their negotioting power got their fair share of the profit as well.
Also the income taxes and corporate taxes for those doing well were MUCH higher AND they were acutally paid.
Neither outsourcing nor tax evasion was possible (Politics starting enabling that on the behest of big biz in the 80s, Reagan, Thatcher, Neo Liberalism, resp. Neo Conservatism)
1
-
* We do not have enough jobs for the workforce as is - and there is a trend to not hire people over 50 or even over 40. So if you are unlucky enough to lose your job and you are over 50 good luck with getting another well-paying long term stable position (as opposed to provisory employment, hire and fire, short term jobs).
In Germany there is also the myth popping up every where, that there is not enough "skilled workforce" (and it is never defined - do they mean academics do they mean skilled blue collars ?, IT, healthcare staff ??).
If that would be the case, 50 year old people would be rehired on the spot and one would see good salaries offered.
That is not happening, more like: they do not have 10 people in line for every position they offer, and they would like to hire young excellently trained people up to 25 years with 10 years experience in the workforce. Add to that wish list a rather low salary and a lot of flexibility (so when and how is that imaginary workforce supposed to have the confidence to establish a family and raise kids ??)
The shortage in skilled workforce seems to be a neoliberal Think Tank invention in order to "justify" working visas for IT people, doctors of medicine etc. from poor countries like India, Bulgaria. They can hire these qualified people at lower wages than the domestic academic workforces would demand. In that scheme even highly qualified positions come under wage pressure as soon as the number of people seeking employment is higher than open positions.
And it has actually become harder to find good, qualified, skilled and resourceful handymen - like plumbers, construction workers, carpenters. Well pay these people better (and give the rest of the population enough money to pay for those services) - and you will be able to find people willing and capable to do the work - and to it well (as it used to be here until around the 90s)
These days everyone runs for the white collar jobs and "higher" education: Motivation part is social prestige, part is the hope for a good salary, part is that the hands-on jobs can be very demanding over time especially if the person is not a young strong man (or woman) anymore.
Well treat them better or offer a transition of career and more people will be willing to do the work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1