(Steering without taxes; 05-02; p.4)

Employers complain about high costs, especially for employees - which is understandable as long as they cannot expand into markets where demanders are found willing to pay those costs mirrored in prices.
The costs for social benefits which are mentioned in this context could be reduced, but surely would re-emerge as direct wage costs: for they are rights long fought for by employees and which employees neither can nor want to relinquish.

That employees do reduce spending in the face of unclear perspectives is understandable, too. Apart from any decision concerning social or tax policies, they as well will be sure that the process of rationalising is pushed forward steadily.
And that the number of jobs created has so far been less than the number of jobs made redundant: a telling sign of that is the acceptance of increased workload in fear of loosing one's job. - To which extent calculated productivity gains will be realised after, say, the fiftieth hour in a week or the quota of rejects then increases, is an empirical question.

 

Feasible solutions?

If somebody had a blue-print for measures in the like of every group, he would certainly either be a candidate for an interdisciplinary Nobel-prize or find himself - modelled after Dürrenmatt's "Physicists" - in a sanatorium. But some feasible limits for acting between cosmos and underworld may perhaps become established.

Law-makers e.g. cannot work effectively but by making laws and guaranteeing compliance to them. To put all hopes merely on growth is the same as to speculate on the future. And even if the values of annually produced wealth rise steadily, that does not mean, it will be done by more employed people.
On the other hand, creating jobs merely by state spending does mean within the given framework of rules penalised indebting, this way burdening the future. - If however the chosen rules are adequate, is a political question. (read on here)