... or so reports the New York Times.
I was very surprised by this little gem.
"In Sweden and Switzerland, 7 of 10 people work past 50. In France, only half do."
I guess that means that the average worker (not the average person) works for about 30 years, which is about 1/3 of a lifetime depending whose numbers you use. Let's assume one lives on his parent's dime (with obvious government aid in terms of schooling and social medicine) for the first 20 years. So that means that unless the average worker has saved up 30 to 40 years worth of living expenses, he/she will be living off of other people's money. I seriously doubt your average Euro worker has that much in savings, so they must be living on other people's money. Who are these other people? Not the current tax payers. They are paying for the previous generation. The other people are future taxpayers, probably a generation or two in the future. The morality of taking care of the elderly, sick, and downtrodden mostly doesn't apply in this case. The average worker can surely work past 60 and beyond. I plan to do so. It's immoral to take from future generations to help us feel good about ourselves today.
4 comments:
I don't know much about this, but I have learned while here in Belgium and the socialist ideas are based on taking care of the workers and not the corporations. Thus the labor laws are very pro-laborer and not pro-company. The idea might sound good from the worker stand point, but it often becomes abusive to the employers, who can not fire employees for poor performance, or abscenteeism, or other neglectful actions on the employees part. Thus the employers get stuck with long term low-performing, non-motivated workers because the law protects them to be so. In some cases the employers don't want to hire the older people because the younger population will hopefully not get sick as often, and will be more motivated to work for promotional opportunities...and since they can't seem to get rid of the laborer very easily, they want the young and healthy ones. I have been told here that when you get a job...you hang on to it, because the older you get, the harder it is to get employeed at all. My point being...maybe they don't work as long because they can't get reemployed if they leave a job, and because they have alot of social services to take care of them if they can't, so then they don't really have to. (Of course, at the tax payers expense). Beligians are heavily taxed, over 50% of their salary....but that is why they have really great social programs here. I don't know if I am making any sense, but it seems to me that Europeans sense of work ethic is hindered because of the heavy social programs and reliance of the government to take care of them if they don't work. Another reason why maybe socialism isn't the best idea. It creates laziness to the point of abusive neglect on the part of the laborer.
You last sentence is exactly why socialism, even Euro-socialism is bad. Workers know they don't have to work hard, so they don't. It's exactly the reason that the average US worker is far more productive than the average European worker (I can look up the stats if anyone wishes). The US worker has his livelihood on the line. The Euro-worker does not.
Comment on the post: I have already alluded to the bad habits of European socialism in my post regarding Greece. I too do not believe that a working life should be limited to thirty years. I will work 40-41 years before any type of retirement. I agree with the intent of the post which is, if I am not mistaken, to condemn a relatively short working life followed by extensive and unreasonable government guarantees of income. George Will has written about this recently and has used California and New Jersey as examples of how unions, especially those that are public employee unions, have created grossly inappropriate entitlements.
Comments on the comments: I do absolutely dispute the attacks on socialism. The issue here is not socialism but lopsided unionism. Unions hold hands with socialism at times, but must not be confused with socialism. Socialism is a slate of worthy goals whose potential and future are still evolving not unlike capitalism that itself is not by any means ideal. Unions can have unhealthy consequences. Socialism as practiced in Europe is not the ideal; I personally hope for an American socialism superior to current incarnations of social ideology.
Inappropriate entitlements cause laziness, however we all agree with a variety of entitlements and benefits. We already all count heavily on social programs.
I am greatly relieved that Doug does not endorse European Socialism as it is now. Now I am very curious as to what a fiscally responsible Socialist America would look like and how we could achieve that while remaining fiscally responsible. I guess I am pessimistic, but unions will always be involved and they tend very selfishly mess things up.
Post a Comment