Tuesday, March 8, 2011

What Does Soaking Your Feet In Epsom Salt Do



The wage increase should be associated with increased productivity workers, so we heard from Angela Merkel the OECD, the IMF, the ECB and up to Felipe González. Of course it is one of the mantras of economic neoliberalism and one of the steps needed to overcome the crisis by all the English business associations.

image

The competitiveness of our ailing economy urgently needs to improve, and apparently the sole responsibility that our businesses are uncompetitive labor and taxes, in Britain, with salaries that are twice those of workers English (42,000 € / year averaged over our € 21,000 annually) and corporation tax exactly equal to the English (between 20% and 30% of accounting profits) could point the finger to their workers, but Spain is not well understood just what wages have to do with the lack of competitiveness.

On February 20 Angel Laboy wrote (director of the juncture of FUNCAS, the Foundation of Savings Banks) in the Business supplement of El Pais that the competitiveness of our companies has been restored over the loss of competitiveness previous years due to the considerable increase in the productivity of the last two years, in fact, the productivity of English workers (usually below 1%) came in 2009 to 3% and 2% in 2010. However, the economy seems to have become the science that deals and justified exceptions to the rule, and recognizing the historical item such deep levels of productivity read that "it not be tempted by the idea that an increase would be better higher wages to throw more consumption ", so the English economic school (FUNCAS is a reference among economists at the time of creating opinion) seems bent on indoctrinating entrepreneurs and neoliberal economic theories on how to quit to apply when they please. Taking as reference

these teachers, we should not be strange little existing culture of efficiency in many English companies, more concerned to set its policies according to the degree of ease in evading taxes or getting rid of labor costs at the slightest hint of a reduction in benefits to reward efficiency or reduce other structural costs totally disproportionate and, in many cases, absurdly whimsical. And with those corporate policies that end up in decisions became economically unjustifiable irrational or at work, neither should we miss the disaffection of many workers to improve their efficiency for the benefit of the company.

Reluctance trade unions and the left in general reference to productivity wages could not be understood without taking into account these considerations, which would add financial chicanery (legally protected since each company may apply its own accounting standards within a broad economic margins) designed specifically to reduce or increase productivity or corporate profits based on short-term interest of each individual company.

Ultimately, what we see in the Spain of today is that while the worker is trying to convince him of the urgent need to reference our salaries to our productivity, employers are being indoctrinated in the ways to prevent increases in productivity may require higher labor costs. Somewhat difficult to get married if both reach the information worker.

As a follow direction, published yesterday in El Pais three economists promoters of the reform of collective bargaining another article that begins with the now familiar mantra: " The English economy has a serious competitiveness problem ." In this case not only responsible to the workers of this serious problem (are wages and working conditions the only factors that prevent firms have the necessary flexibility to increase their competitiveness: "Collective bargaining should facilitate the adjustment of wages and working conditions on productivity [and] allow companies to have flexibility in work organization to increase its competitiveness ), but even goes a little there: the only ones responsible for "excessive weight unproductive sectors " in the English economy are the wages paid workers, they should show more respect ' to differences in productivity between sectors and occupations . "

Of course, English companies have no responsibility for the "redeployment resources to more profitable activities "because they have so little internal flexibility (can not" alter the negotiated "in existing collective agreements or" sag what is agreed in those ") that the wages of Curritos English even " the advantage of new technologies prevent and restrict the growth of SMEs ."

bluntly: a business and productive sectors can not be required to offer better salaries to more productive workers (these workers have decent wages, just half the salary they would receive in Britain, so in Spain do not know what is the brain drain), so the only solution is to reduce the wages of the least productive workers a quarter (25%) or less than they would receive in England. That is, that Spain would only be competitive if we charged workers less than 33% of that charged in other European country, although I would go further: if you really want to be competitive and want to avoid that companies open their plants and move their headquarters to China (for instance), what we should do is learn from the third world and work 18 hours in exchange for lodging.

These economists resurgence of capitalism rather Wild solely responsible for the current financial crisis that has paralyzed completely Spain and half the world, not only conform to beat the working class (all without distinction except themselves, never give up their salaries for the benefit of a third, or did these economists are working for free to help businesses that hire them to be more competitive?), but even pretend to pull our legs waiting for us to stay in complete destitution and nodded without saying a word before his brilliant occurrences our benefit.

And I wonder: is that no one with sufficient capacity to explain media workers (the vast majority of English) savage capitalism that has brought us to this situation wants to die fighting and that they will try to recover their profits at the expense of anyone without the least regard the means or the collateral damage caused?