Something has happened to our financial system, which makes it a couple of decades to generate a strong increase in economic inequality. It has not always been the case, over a long period of time, during the 1900’s has reduced the economic inequality in western economies, but then, at the end of the 1970s, is the opposite, as a matter of fact. A number of international organizations that have not previously been well-known for to worry about this problem, for example, the world Bank, the World economic forum and the OECD, the issue is now severe warning to the current context of economic inequality is not consistent with sound economic and social development.
Sweden used to be one of the OECD countries with the lowest levels of economic inequality, but it is by no means any longer the case. On the contrary, Sweden is one of the OECD countries in which inequality has grown the most in the last decade and a half. We have the world’s probably strongest in the trade unions does not seem to help. The stockholm stock exchange for the last ten years, the price has risen by 190 per cent, while wages have only risen by 27 per cent. To this must be added that the minister of finance, Magdalena Andersson (S) vidgått to the state’s budget, which was recently placed on the parliament’s table will further increase the economic gap.
the Trust between the people in the communities, with the strong inequality is typically low, in the inequality also fuels the various forms of corruption, and creates a severe social and political conflicts. In Sweden, we can see that there are people who are long-term unemployed people, or people retiring on disability pension, that is to say, they are the economic losers in the market, which have a significantly lower trust in other people as well. On top of that, there is little evidence to suggest that there is growing economic inequality, which is one of the main reasons for the success of the populist and often xenophobic parties, as well as of the right-to-left.
The model that is proposed here would, in my opinion, the spark is as much a political battle, as in the case of private apartment buildings taken over by the tenants, and to tenant-owner associations, that is to say, not at all.
as Of the (of the, I would argue, with good reason) worried about the growing economic inequality, the proposals set out in the question, as to what can and should be done, so far, has been focused on a return to the more wide-ranging redistributive policies that characterized the country until the beginning of the 1990’s. Higher taxes, better public services and a higher contribution to the recipe.
there is no way anybody opposed to such a policy, but I will ask two questions, you Will be able to get a political majority for such a policy, and, in this case, it is sufficient to overcome the strong increase in the economic inequality we observe. I think that the answer to both these questions unfortunately is ‘no’.
After a lot of digging into the research, I have come to the conclusion that if something is ever going to be able to be done in this matter, employees in any way in the enjoyment also of the företagskapitalets rate of return. In this case, since löntagarfondsstriden has been a taboo subject in american politics.
Löntagarfondsidén was, in my view, in this context, the particularly bad thing as it has never been clear as to what it might mean to the individual wage of the position of the company in which such fackföreningskontrollerade mutual funds owned the stock. The problem is that these poorly constructed, following the rise and fall of the has poisoned the possibility of a calm discussion about the employees ‘ ability to get the income, also, from the returns on the capital that is ”working” in the business.
it doesn’t have to be. In a market economy, ” ism ” hiring (i.e., hiring) workers and the capital owners have the right to return to his capital from the profit of the company. However, in a market economy, while wage and salary earners to rent (i.e. borrow) the capital and that of wage and salary earners, who have the right to the proceeds of the profit of the company.
In the US, for example, if you have a model that makes it easier for employees to become shareholders of their company. Unlike in Sweden, where both the tax incentives and the functioning of the law, which makes it possible for the employees of a company, with the company’s assets as collateral to purchase the company from the owners, which means that they do not require to take the personal financial risks involved. Patrik Witkowsky shown in a report of the work of the united states, just over one-tenth of the wage and salary earners in the details of 7,000 companies that have this model, and of these, more than 4,000 where the employee is a majority shareholder.
a number of studies have shown that they are probably as viable as the kapitalägda firms, and have higher earnings, are more satisfied with their working conditions and, last but not the least important, in this context, as a share of the profits. On average, the employees of these companies, the assets, usually in the form of pension savings, far in excess of wage and salary earners in the kapitalägda company.
When a kassabiträde who has worked for a long time in the personalägda dagligvaruföretaget Publix in the US (which has over 180,000 employees), elderly make it are usually dollarmiljonär. In Sweden, Handelsbanken has, since the 1970s, a system of employee ownership. As an employee of the bank, is retiring after some thirty years of work, the payout is estimated to be somewhere between 15 and 20 million. It is, in other words, the significant sums of money to the individual employees, as these are the systems with employee ownership often leads to.
as Such ownership appears, however, to be in line with the technological developments in what is known as the ”new economy”.
When the sex of the young, successful entrepreneurs in this part of the business a few years ago, this page expressed what they wanted from a political perspective, their first of the requirements that you need to address is the lack of the ability to share ownership with employees.” The reason for this requirement seems to be that this new type of business, owners are extremely dependent on the employees ‘ commitment, trust, and creativity, and this is aided, of course, the employees will also get a share of the company’s profits.
This model is supported in the united states, both the Republicans and the Democrats. In Sweden, however, is the question of the employees ‘ share of company profits, has come to be politicised broken löntagarfondsstriden. It is the model that is proposed here would, in my opinion, bringing as much political strife as in the case of private apartment buildings taken over by the tenants, and to tenant-owner associations, that is to say, not at all.
It’s going to be a personalägda companies that are not profitable and those who work in the public sector will not receive any dividend payments. However, those who demand a perfect system is going to have to wait forever on the effectiveness of measures to tackle the surge, and, in my opinion, samhällsfarliga inequality we have for a long time, have suffered.