What I'm trying to say is that the gains of the labour movement over the past 200 years are the "social engineering" you're talking about. And so is the Swedish Model. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Sweden needs no minimum wage because wages in Sweden aren't determined by the market. They're determined by associational bargaining. I think that this is highly superior to having either the state or the market determine wages.
And it all worked fairly well until you had skilled workers break with solidaristic wage policies in the early 90's. And when that happened you lost much of the wage restraint that made the system work, and the macro coordination to ensure economic stability between the blue collar and white collar unions.
I guess for me the interesting thing is that Sweden is one of those countries where the logic of the market is highly constrained within social institions and rules. Which is why you don't need nearly as much state intervention. Sweden is imperfect, but the ability of associational systems like in Sweden and Germany to achieve social justice by social organizations rather than state intervention is something that deserves to be looked at much more closely. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I do not agree with this description. There has always been tensions among different unions about how to split the pie. There was governmental efforts during the crisis years in the early 90's to limit all unions wage demands but that was in my opinion more related to the general transition from high inflation - low unemployment to low inflation - high unemployment (moving on the Phillips curve). The unions system of internal negotiations is quite unchanged.
The reasons for the general crisis was a mixture. Ingredients included increased governmental borrowing and spending during the roaring years of the late 80's and an overheated housing market that when it crashed wiped out fortunes and a lot of savings. Construction came to an abrupt halt. Housing companies turned out to have more loans then assets. If banks were allowed to go bankcrupt some would have, Nordea (Nordbanken) that was in the worst shape was taken over and run by the government.
Which role inflation and the transition to low inflation (in the middle of crisis) played is less clear to me. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/June2007/08/c2877.html
Supreme Court of Canada says collective bargaining protected by Charter of Rights and Freedoms OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike. But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
The ironic thing here is that I think that you've misinterpreted the social conditioning of preferences with individual choice.
In one word.
Lagom
Is your preference for leisure over seeking further material gains the result of the rational calculation of utitilies to choose the option providing the greatest utility, or is this socially conditioned, such that the formal organization of work by law is unneccesary because social norms condtion preferences to an extent that it's unneccesary? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
It's just that you can't be an employee of some corporation if you want to work more than 48 hours per week (or some other limit depending on the country).
Just offer your work as a contractor on a per job basis and there is no regulation in the total hours worked.
So you can get your BMW, even in France.
