> Because then the question arises: What if the current way of handling labor protection in the EU (as one of many components) leads to destroying yours and everyone elses standard of living, simply because it's unaffordable?
It's quite an assumption that it's unaffordable. In the last decades efficiency has been only increasing, but working hours per week aren't significantly going down nor are the salaries noticeably higher.
Where does all the extra efficiency go to? It's pretty ok in my book if it goes to social security.
It's absolutely fantastic for the people, as long as you get companies to agree with you. Looking at the EU market: Does it work? Is that your reading?
I am sure there are ways to try and force companies, but I would suspect it's fairly complicated politically, given that that's usually not how that goes.
> Looking at the EU market: Does it work? Is that your reading?
The EU single market isn't really single yet - and that is in my views the biggest obstacle to innovating start-ups being able to scale. If you want to release EU-wide you have to make sure you also comply to 27 national jurisdictions. It's hard. I work at financial services, and we really have to carefully grow and release per country. The UK would have been nice, but being even more different, for the company of our size they are a total no-go.
But I do think it works. The European countries with strong workers' protection are very attractive destination for knowledge immigration, they make a good chunk of top-10 in Human Development Index, and the whole of top-10 if you adjust it by inequality (so if you look at median at not an average).
> I am sure there are ways to try and force companies, but I would suspect it's fairly complicated politically
Less complicated in the EU than basically anywhere else in the world.
> Less complicated in the EU than basically anywhere else in the world.
Oh, the idea was not that the EU couldn't compel companies to do things. They can. It's that companies can then go and move production somewhere else in the world. As they do.
done by the workforce. The financial benefits of worker innovation flow upwards, first to shareholders then to executives. Whatever is left over is claimed by expenses, modernization and as low a wage as can be engineered.
Yes, the workers innovate, rather than the shareholders or management. I think that's the understood context of this discussion/reality. I think this is a tangent of the above.
It's quite an assumption that it's unaffordable. In the last decades efficiency has been only increasing, but working hours per week aren't significantly going down nor are the salaries noticeably higher.
Where does all the extra efficiency go to? It's pretty ok in my book if it goes to social security.