(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.
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