query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 5
5.37k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
eb3c9aa4554ddff1d50681a2fab4b986
|
There should be no legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours as it limits economic growth.
The transaction, hiring and human resource costs of forcing businesses to take on more workers mean that productivity is reduced and resources are wasted. While GDP might rise because of these actions, GDP will rise due to a fallacy of the "labour theory of value"1 kind. Effort isn't in and of itself productive, though it will add to many measures of GDP. Currently displaced workers would be better served inventing new products and services for the economy they are in.
1 Mick Brooks "An Introduction to The Labour Theory Of Value Part One" Marxist.com 15th Oct 2002
|
[
{
"docid": "f7d9b8e2990a3c998eb532ca14c25a9d",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be It isn't actually being suggested that we reduce the total amount of work done. What is being suggested is that we have some of the unemployed be allowed to get access to the labour that is required via limiting the hours existing workers can put in. GDP growth can still be achieved as the amount of work remains unchanged.\n\nIn fact, as more of the population become involved in the workforce a lot of other problems and costs will disappear from the economy and society that imposes a maximum working week.\" two economists argue that a drop of two percentage points in unemployment would mean a 9% decline in burglary, 14% in rape and robbery and 30% in assault.\"1\n\n1 Prof. Rudolph Winter-Ebmer \"\"Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime\" CEPR Discussion paper, 2001\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79b73f6e547cef9164670e9834b80d4f",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be That's right, even more jobs would be created by hiring people to check on procedures, workplaces and hours worked. When there are literally millions of displaced potential workers and all the social and economic problems unemployment can cause this is no bad thing.\n\nNot only that but there are already policing of business operations present in all advanced economies, this function could be simply added to the list of things to check for by those agencies. New employment within existing organisations is therefore created, so there is a doubling effect from this policy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6b02c7e8903571928f0bb19377128b",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Only some SME will be affected, and those on such a knife edge financially would probably not have lasted long in the face of competition in any event. Such enterprises are really being subsidised by taking advantage of their workers at the expense of those workers health.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ebc867103992aa9a4e77db38ea7033b",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Given the market is already moving in such a direction, there is no need to wait for the slow whittling away of the less optimal when it can be done right away by legislation. This will give a huge head start compared to any economy which uses the market mechanism and make any economy who takes this road advance in terms of productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc998102200e0f693ba81c4ca0f6bad",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.\n\n\"The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%.\"1 Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.\n\n1 Dr. Wendell Williams, \"The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire\" October 11th, 2001\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33eabf8efd4484ba3dab06a558f95917",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say \"no\" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment.\n\nThe fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours.\n\n\"The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause.\"\n\nNot only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees.\n\n1 Liza Morgan \"Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b39908ad4f1c1ebc32de509052e88a83",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. \"Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing\" (between 1994 and 2004)1\n\nThe actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it.\n\nThe other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area.\n\n1 Gregory M. Lamb \"Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?\" USA Today 30th August 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4350afc87199cb44c4c5deeee681f2e7",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A \"one size fits all\" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so.\n\nThe choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14f1ae2d4d1dc8152f7f8de47053dddf",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be The market already limits worker hours when left to its own devices, no intrusion is required.\n\nLong hours which reduce worker effectiveness already make a business less competitive. The invisible hand will remove those businesses which exploit their workers, or who don't take into account employee motivation and what they need to get maximum productivity far more effectively as they are beaten in the marketplace by those companies which do take those things into account.\n\nImprovements in worker conditions always come first from the private sector seeking to maximise profits. This has been true as far back as the industrial revolution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f37f258786be9f9d1382ab644e37ecec",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Small and mid sized businesses cannot afford the extra costs involved in complying with such a policy.\n\nEach new worker has certain fixed costs associated with their employment. Tax, insurance, training, office space, record keeping, background checks, sickness, disciplinary as well as necessary equipment, the actual cost of hiring them and advertising for them and other benefits (usually this adds up to 1.25-1.4x base salary per worker.1\n\n1 Joe Hadzima \"How Much Does an Employee Cost?\" Boston Business Journal (reprinted for MIT 2005)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "689c35287e4231f187d5fbef379c295f",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy\n\nComplying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state?\n\nAt best there will be ignored regulations - 14-16% of the economy is already avoiding legal responsibilities1 and with employers dissuaded from taking risks that are larger than they would otherwise be, a working week cap has the effect of making the \"shadow\" economy even more attractive to businesses.\n\n1 Friedrich Schneider with DominikEnste, \"The Growth of the Underground Economy\" IMF Paper 2002\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01c107173cc9f9ea4b5421a86dc57843",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.\n\nAccording to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce.\n\nWith no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them.\n\n1 \"World unemployment figures by country\" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8218cb97750b72c8171acf21e98e7e83",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.\n\nOne of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus.\n\nThe only question once that is realised is what limit should there be on working hours to ensure full employment. (Or employment at maximum practical capacity.) The purpose of the economy is to serve people, and having a large percentage of people excluded when there is an easy and obvious fix is to fail in the economies mission.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9da5885ff12fbeac7954569e7c6475fd",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.\n\nHuman beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. \"While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false\"1\n\nA mandatory cap on the hours they work removes the decision from them and avoids this problem.\n\n1 Sarah Ledoux – “The effects of sleep deprivation on brain and behaviour” Biology 202 Bryn Mawr College 01/03/2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d611420b734c5e3e824e25d2cfa643d",
"text": "business employment economy general society house believes there should be A maximum working week provides protection for workers.\n\nIn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2\n\nEven in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat. The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.3\n\nIt goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others.\n\n1 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
956d0b4b7d76161d749e9342bf4be2d8
|
Under representation of emerging economies
Claims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.
[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575
|
[
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
03ae660e02bc4e35cf5577a617f20a39
|
Neoliberal foreign policy
Western dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .
[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html
[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm
|
[
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
32e8c120ffedd4b701084df43eaebd58
|
Unbalanced decision making
The decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .
[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html
|
[
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6decd0329466e437da8b048a3494a61d
|
IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare
Since Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .
[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
74a549a1866c1817904a5bc9c0ba58b7
|
Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making
Capitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.
|
[
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
03bd5c0c129c0470f5bd90eba707c8d8
|
Gradual and abrupt change
To paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.
[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html
|
[
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9f0c255a0295636ecc3365e16adba40b
|
The role of managing director
For its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .
[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html
|
[
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec554e5dfeb67b8528682fb07193059",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Western states as large scale shareholders\n\nWestern countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9c053534ced6e4d009d48b19a5bef41c
|
Western states as large scale shareholders
Western countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.
|
[
{
"docid": "bc4530b1e9f192dd4edc9657a8b1d3cf",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.\n\nWestern countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.\n\n[1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Members.27_quotas_and_voting_power.2C_and_board_of_governors\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5d513e8faf56e49bee343430a2d1381d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6297dea6bea92264b485de80bc6d7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .\n\n[1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18744017\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a0f45325cde61d617d884aeac6ce75",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd9468c7429dc6d2f8ed56b7fd58dd4f",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c6d7e84c2537ed3bc4d4c958f3cc69d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e17642e84bd0a484223eedd4e2e99e4c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3f252e5c37993675f05e04be4bdf7",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.\n\n[1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/amar-bhide-and-edmund-phelps-on-what-s-wrong-with-the-imf.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc039ed91ef5d16cdf41d954a34841d",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making\n\nCapitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008e27f2445a50ae1497558b85696f0c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Gradual and abrupt change\n\nTo paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.\n\n[1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/emerging-economies-battle-for-more-voting-rights-at-imf-1794358.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2063dd60132d3911db85178a19c559dc",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over The role of managing director\n\nFor its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .\n\n[1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105240835.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952be09983f6b2a190c64f50961697eb",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Under representation of emerging economies\n\nClaims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.\n\n[1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18897575\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a247898ec0e673847903375b9e6dc6",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Neoliberal foreign policy\n\nWestern dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .\n\n[1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-not-just-dominique-strausskahn-the-imf-itself-should-be-on-trial-2292270.html\n\n[2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c448d6b7eb3ddcca80fb10d5a9574c5",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over Unbalanced decision making\n\nThe decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa84e75f12eeeada39ca548ecd77143c",
"text": "finance international africa global house would end western states control over IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare\n\nSince Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .\n\n[1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002 https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
01340399e5de0358093b5c8b82ed2def
|
The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness
Without a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.
[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000
[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009
|
[
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
cc646bfaae28d18a77ed20a0edd68a9b
|
Higher wages boost economic growth
Employees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.
[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994
[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009
|
[
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8311d0717d57a00b4afdf27c0b18ee40
|
The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers
Businesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.
[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009
[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000
|
[
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
52fad39c865a7a1a5205aceeec7fe053
|
The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels
When wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.
[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004
|
[
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
14203a2a3d2c9aa0f75ac0796e92811b
|
Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage
The ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.
[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010
[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
04f2d36c379f5f37d254c1350f3a64f4
|
The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work
Individuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.
[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679b148eb47a8484df75c9a8fd934218",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere\n\nPoliticians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9ec5621a2d076652036ac3af0a4285ac
|
The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere
Politicians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.
[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "9e69f6136617a2fb61f5029fcca2474c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "da87a192bae8b102d6bdc6acfb10d22f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a367c8417fcf930b3141afec35a3cc7",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f67beaf412f81b321a9e98e74b4104c0",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aaec8337a8bd3c3dbb879239f7d16b5",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5e839af8bc20c25097e6b788a4a0e3",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1606adab31810db92c4a76d1d814d2",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753f0d78a8bbf08468cdbcc5f012313c",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a59aeedccc7c3c57ada35453fbc4ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage\n\nThe ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.\n\n[1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010\n\n[2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1e0b0fd5c2ebdd3c6cd75a6ce867db",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The free market tends to treat workers fairly\n\nIn the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.\n\n[1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2228c3b8b2a98d785ccecabf3e4b739",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work\n\nIndividuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.\n\n[1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d20440b8a99cb54e571f18ae5388ee6",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness\n\nWithout a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.\n\n[1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n\n[2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893be2d8b0ae3148f8d4f283d047c85f",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage Higher wages boost economic growth\n\nEmployees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.\n\n[1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994\n\n[2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c018edc0668fd95cf2e93bdd6ba35c8",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers\n\nBusinesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.\n\n[1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009\n\n[2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b9c66868a07ceed565ca59b9257a25",
"text": "business economic policy economy general house believes national minimum wage The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels\n\nWhen wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.\n\n[1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4f9e39b07064f9b8ab1e141cb9716f95
|
Environmental Damage
Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .
[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/
[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16
|
[
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a129f628bf2a43939b6e82cd495a8351
|
Foreign companies gain most of the profits
The majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .
Kofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.
[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf
[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources
[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70
[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore
|
[
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8f840a3462773ed52e0055e1fab7cea5
|
Resource abundance has led to poor governance
Corruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.
[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html
[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/
[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf
[4] Ibid
[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fa1f0a5abf99a3d62c3ff0019bbc0761
|
Resources are a source of conflict
There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.
[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf
[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791
|
[
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2172c929e2e67b17bd52ff74a77636c2
|
Bring Africa out of poverty
The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .
[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources
[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html
[3] Ibid
|
[
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0c2ee1a916fe4cf23e8ca193d06f53ef
|
Source of trade
Natural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.
[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/
|
[
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa78b8b542908593661996fcd814616b",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Natural resources create employment\n\nThe extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.\n\n[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fccc833b8e8c1c1c729361298537d8e6
|
Natural resources create employment
The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.
[1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013 http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html
|
[
{
"docid": "e3bef0903a722bbb4de76918363eb3e1",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.\n\nThe presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .\n\n[1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html\n\n[2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c4216f7723aa80ae8214cd1d8a91e722",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258\n\n[3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3077646227b74c58d1adbc8b5e32f9f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c2ff4fa2fb3e972df8892d0fd427de8",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .\n\n[1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html\n\n[2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134\n\n[3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8add8ff45403d043e3146447c1cad45f",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.\n\n[1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecae5522e7448cb5fb4104e0c7399479",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.\n\n[1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf\n\n[2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587570a22b08d4a58b1a55414f066c32",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.\n\n[1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point\n\n[2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bf5d418a8c84596f559e79f54826da",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Bring Africa out of poverty\n\nThe African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .\n\n[1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources\n\n[2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html\n\n[3] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746d06e1fee687315ef3f42e1330da6a",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Source of trade\n\nNatural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.\n\n[1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011 http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/manufacturing-can-africa-become-the-next-china/9959/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ca4aaa90c7103881f9c6e4d477a4d61",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Environmental Damage\n\nBoth licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .\n\n[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/40893/\n\n[2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013 http://www.miningweekly.com/article/illegal-mining-in-south-africa-a-growing-problem-that-has-to-be-stopped-2013-08-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6683e983e9ad980926a37fb2a916289",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Foreign companies gain most of the profits\n\nThe majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .\n\nKofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.\n\n[1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf\n\n[2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources\n\n[3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1f9c0159-6595-4449-9c3f-536572e4df70\n\n[4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/barclays-bank-tax-havens-africa-mauritius-offshore\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b742f102c8bb037eeb9ff11e2ab648ef",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resource abundance has led to poor governance\n\nCorruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.\n\n[1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/no-african-leader-wins-5m-good-governance-award-105638193.html\n\n[2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013 http://www.financialtransparency.org/2013/09/19/why-are-extractive-industries-prone-to-corruption-part-ii/\n\n[3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., & Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5 http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[4] Ibid\n\n[5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013, http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130514_Report_DRC_mining_deals_highlight_resource_corruption_ENG1.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877e81ddb4208c17c0b29732a0b2f0b3",
"text": "business economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse Resources are a source of conflict\n\nThere is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.\n\n[1] Pandergast, 2008, http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0633.pdf\n\n[2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/africas-resource-wars-assume-epidemic-proportions/5312791\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
cff781b1895c175fc8977a71387a346f
|
Provides autonomy for developing countries
Rwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.
[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012
[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund
|
[
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122714c9d0fbf168c442d432701c9ac1",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances reduce poverty\n\nThere has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.\n\nRemittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.\n\n[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1622e6bad07fc4c3b28e1572620b23a2",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals\n\nChanging from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.\n\nFirst tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.\n\nSecondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]\n\n[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d59238de3f6f80a63b12c9a7b150d071",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances won’t be focused on development work\n\nOfficial development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.\n\n[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2052fa5b3c9915652b2c2c6458e523d8",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Money won’t go to where it is needed most.\n\nAid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]\n\nThere would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.\n\n[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD\n\n[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013\n\n[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae1fa8cb7b2ab171381a6dd76afa2a4",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Encourages a brain drain\n\nAny change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.\n\nThe brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.\n\n[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
409172b6c8ce3c037284843c3e3dc82b
|
Remittances reduce poverty
There has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.
Remittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.
[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009
[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660
|
[
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d73fcfba5c4737dbdbac49e348a5e",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Provides autonomy for developing countries\n\nRwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.\n\n[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012\n\n[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1622e6bad07fc4c3b28e1572620b23a2",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals\n\nChanging from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.\n\nFirst tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.\n\nSecondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]\n\n[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d59238de3f6f80a63b12c9a7b150d071",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances won’t be focused on development work\n\nOfficial development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.\n\n[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2052fa5b3c9915652b2c2c6458e523d8",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Money won’t go to where it is needed most.\n\nAid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]\n\nThere would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.\n\n[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD\n\n[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013\n\n[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae1fa8cb7b2ab171381a6dd76afa2a4",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Encourages a brain drain\n\nAny change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.\n\nThe brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.\n\n[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
984db7b7c53f432190ca7c914a9122d0
|
Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals
Changing from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.
First tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.
Secondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]
[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d73fcfba5c4737dbdbac49e348a5e",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Provides autonomy for developing countries\n\nRwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.\n\n[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012\n\n[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122714c9d0fbf168c442d432701c9ac1",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances reduce poverty\n\nThere has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.\n\nRemittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.\n\n[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d59238de3f6f80a63b12c9a7b150d071",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances won’t be focused on development work\n\nOfficial development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.\n\n[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2052fa5b3c9915652b2c2c6458e523d8",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Money won’t go to where it is needed most.\n\nAid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]\n\nThere would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.\n\n[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD\n\n[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013\n\n[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae1fa8cb7b2ab171381a6dd76afa2a4",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Encourages a brain drain\n\nAny change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.\n\nThe brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.\n\n[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0a221449252054bf9ed2f3c448dddb5e
|
Remittances won’t be focused on development work
Official development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.
[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8
|
[
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2052fa5b3c9915652b2c2c6458e523d8",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Money won’t go to where it is needed most.\n\nAid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]\n\nThere would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.\n\n[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD\n\n[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013\n\n[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae1fa8cb7b2ab171381a6dd76afa2a4",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Encourages a brain drain\n\nAny change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.\n\nThe brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.\n\n[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d73fcfba5c4737dbdbac49e348a5e",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Provides autonomy for developing countries\n\nRwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.\n\n[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012\n\n[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122714c9d0fbf168c442d432701c9ac1",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances reduce poverty\n\nThere has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.\n\nRemittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.\n\n[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1622e6bad07fc4c3b28e1572620b23a2",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals\n\nChanging from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.\n\nFirst tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.\n\nSecondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]\n\n[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e7c2c888a35d17c18798476791d47301
|
Money won’t go to where it is needed most.
Aid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]
There would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.
[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD
[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013
[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11
|
[
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d59238de3f6f80a63b12c9a7b150d071",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances won’t be focused on development work\n\nOfficial development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.\n\n[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae1fa8cb7b2ab171381a6dd76afa2a4",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Encourages a brain drain\n\nAny change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.\n\nThe brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.\n\n[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d73fcfba5c4737dbdbac49e348a5e",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Provides autonomy for developing countries\n\nRwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.\n\n[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012\n\n[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122714c9d0fbf168c442d432701c9ac1",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances reduce poverty\n\nThere has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.\n\nRemittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.\n\n[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1622e6bad07fc4c3b28e1572620b23a2",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals\n\nChanging from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.\n\nFirst tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.\n\nSecondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]\n\n[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
97fe266290deaa455cfe46e57d88fc01
|
Encourages a brain drain
Any change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.
The brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.
[1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114
|
[
{
"docid": "03812e0b1e433845b94c8a883f78fe44",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.\n\nSecondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]\n\n[1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc4e33616d829ce3ab28ed317798b0e5",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0432aa449b6cebe0434e7f29b37c69f",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7505c1f8fe17606c698d2b92a47289d0",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04c3cb4c72fd20cc8900f4fb4118df98",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "825e46330c0b88b2b5fc4eb929322a86",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d59238de3f6f80a63b12c9a7b150d071",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances won’t be focused on development work\n\nOfficial development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.\n\n[1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2052fa5b3c9915652b2c2c6458e523d8",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Money won’t go to where it is needed most.\n\nAid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]\n\nThere would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.\n\n[1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD\n\n[2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013\n\n[3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d73fcfba5c4737dbdbac49e348a5e",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Provides autonomy for developing countries\n\nRwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.\n\n[1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012\n\n[2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122714c9d0fbf168c442d432701c9ac1",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances reduce poverty\n\nThere has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.\n\nRemittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.\n\n[1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009\n\n[2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1622e6bad07fc4c3b28e1572620b23a2",
"text": "economic policy economy general house would replace aid remittances Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals\n\nChanging from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.\n\nFirst tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.\n\nSecondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]\n\n[1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
97fed8bae25127190ac0fc72231f1eef
|
The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries
An inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.
|
[
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdfaffffd134e1bae4a94db30b0368d",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality\n\nIn many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.\n\nFor example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5ecce2668906f0addfc228fa04017426
|
Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country
Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.
Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.
|
[
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6227e3793ac6c69352683ef99dcc17",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries\n\nAn inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdfaffffd134e1bae4a94db30b0368d",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality\n\nIn many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.\n\nFor example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a9906311f7f99a78bde4647b1afa5bb9
|
Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be "actors" in policy making
Young intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be "actors" and not "spectators" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.
|
[
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6227e3793ac6c69352683ef99dcc17",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries\n\nAn inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdfaffffd134e1bae4a94db30b0368d",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality\n\nIn many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.\n\nFor example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6996d31a8963702c564290490cc4225d
|
Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation
Developing countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.
|
[
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdfaffffd134e1bae4a94db30b0368d",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality\n\nIn many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.\n\nFor example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6227e3793ac6c69352683ef99dcc17",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries\n\nAn inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d7f8dc36b559d119dc9d73569abc14a7
|
Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality
In many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.
For example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)
|
[
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6227e3793ac6c69352683ef99dcc17",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries\n\nAn inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
18409aca004e366bed4b4dc0a74b1ed8
|
Given the current state of the Republican field and the gravity of the challenges facing the US, Obama may well be not only the best but the only hope
The Republican Party primary campaign currently resembles a dismembered chicken’s head in frantic search of a body. Palin, Trump, Perry… A string of gaffes followed by a collapse after collapse. [i]
Obama at the very least has the capacity to inspire confidence and the experience of four years in office. If, as seems most likely, the Republican candidate ends up being Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, then he would represent a figure who is almost as unpopular in his own party as he is with Democrats.
Divided and divisive a Republican victory in 2012 would fragment congress, terrify the markets and worry international opinion. Furthermore, the only policy option they appear to have suggested for dealing with the economic mess is to do nothing except, perhaps, cut taxes some more; thereby increasing the deficit and further angering China.
Unless the republicans can come up with a genuine surprise (and the guy they voted against last time really doesn’t fit that bill) then the voters are presented with one very harsh reality: Vote for anybody, as long as it’s Obama [ii] .
[i] Dionne, E.J. Jr., “The Rise of the Reverse Houdinis”, 13 October 2011 .
[ii] E.J. Dionne. “GOP’s Favorite Solution: Doing Nothing”. Real Clear Politics. 13 October 2011.
|
[
{
"docid": "148c553984b28589fcdd2da853b5f2de",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama The republican primaries have yet to even begin so it is too soon to be writing off the whole party.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc407a7857f5ef4d348befc8a1211b44",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama President Bush took a series of extremely difficult decisions that were necessary for national security. Admittedly they were expensive but they made the world a safer place. His decisions on taxation ensured that all Americans benefitted from economic growth.\n\nHe had already done the heavy lifting all the Obama administration needed to do was allow the market to bring the economy out of recession. Instead he has interfered and regulated while constantly spending money that wasn’t there on policies that weren’t priorities.\n\nThere’s no denying that the economy was in trouble when Obama got the keys to the West Wing but the job of being president is solving these things, not complaining about them. He wanted the job and has singularly failed to deliver.\n\nInstead he has pursued a left-wing, interventionist agenda that believes that government can provide all the answers. Except there is a big problem: he has no experience of running anything. He was a junior Senator in an era where the country tends to turn to former governors to fill the Chief Executive’s jacket; he simply doesn’t know what he’s doing [i] .\n\n[i] Emmett Tyrrell. \"Barbour out on the hustings.\" The American Spectator. March 17th, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a8404aa1f535b5b1f8e8b695689bd1b",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Nobody denies that Obama talks a good game and that he came into office facing some big problems. However, the reality is that he simply hasn’t stepped up to the plate. The economy is a shambles; unemployment is at over nine percent and only looks to grow, the debt is running at $14tn and the deficit is out of control.\n\nHis much vaunted healthcare plan is a rehash of Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. His only solution to any problem is to throw money that the government doesn’t have at it [i] .\n\nUltimately, he has proved himself long on rhetoric but very short on delivery. His campaign was based on an idea that he could provide leadership to a nation in trouble. Instead he has rushed after either verbosity or inaction and frequently both [ii] .\n\n[i] Karl Rove. \"Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012.\" Wall Street Journal. June 22nd, 2011\n\n[ii] John Feehery. \"Opinion: Obama’s fatal missteps.\" The Hill. October 3rd, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "495ae84977d9a61489032375f8345d65",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Obama took the lead in putting together an international solution to the financial crisis. He has taken bold decisions to prevent the crisis turning into a full-blown depression, such as pushing through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was to give an estimated $787billion stimulus to the economy, [i] and has acted to control the worst excesses of Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. [ii] He has passed consumer protections legislation relating to credit cards and mortgages and established a framework to double US exports by 2015. He created and Advanced Manufacturing Fund to help the economy away from its addiction to the antics of Wall Street wide boys and return the focus to industries that make something tangible and, in the same spirit, rescued Detroit from its own suicidal tendencies.\n\nHe has freely conceded that unemployment is too high and is working to address that in the midst of an economic crisis that was not of his making. However, he is delivering public policy solutions in new and imaginative areas as opposed to the tired claims of Republicans that yet another tax cut would be a panacea for all economic ills.\n\n[i] Recovery.gov, ‘The Recovery Act’\n\n[ii] The Library of Congress Thomas, ‘H.R.4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’, 111th Congress 2009-2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "641493d3c4eea6701ac8e111d81c31bf",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama There is a perennial Republican attack – that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. Obama has proven that to be untrue settling issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has, however, managed to do it without offending anybody or having his effigy burnt on the streets in Canada and Europe [i] .\n\nHe has managed to re-forge the supportive attitude of much of the world towards combating terrorism and worked with leaders of other major economies to tackle the economic troubles in the global economy. President Bush was the one always looking for votes with his fake bonhomie and folksy charm for the voters back home. Obama by contrast treats his allies with respect and receives it in return and abundance. [ii]\n\n[i] President Obama. \"Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity.\" USA Today. September 08, 2011\n\n[ii] President Obama. \"Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity.\" USA Today. September 08, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3815ad05f729239dcf1ee5e9dfa087a3",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama The reality is fairly simple; Obama is a skilled politician, that is beyond dispute. However, he is also a respected constitutional scholar, the man who caught Bin Laden after eight years of Bush-bluster, who delivered the Democrats – and the American people - their holy grail of universal healthcare.\n\nContrast this with a Republican leadership who either can’t remember their own policies or who seem to base them on assertions, such as the one made by Michelle Bachman that Jefferson and Mason, both of whom owned slaves, worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. [i] Mitt Romney the candidate the Rupublicans finally decided on is out of touch with ordinary voters, making gaffes such as saying his wife drives 'a couple of cadillacs'.\n\nThe contrast could not be clearer; at least the president knows the difference between the War of Independence and the Civil War and cares about ordinary voters.\n\n[i] Roper, Richard, ‘Bachmann, Palin should just admit gaffes, then move on, Chicago Sun Times, 29 June 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a23ac4538fad3488cf9347a1f10469a6",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama After eight years of misrule under Bush, in the middle of an appalling recession expecting everything top get done in four years was always fantasy\n\nGiven the size of the challenges facing the Obama administration when he was elected, they were never going to be resolved in four years. Perhaps his largest mistake was not amending his “Yes, we can” slogan with the caveat “but it’s going to take a while.”\n\nA debt of $14tn was never just going to vanish like the morning mist, particularly in the depths for a recession caused, in large part, by the Bush administration’s inability to regulate their friends in the banking industry, to start unnecessary wars and to give away tax breaks to the rich.\n\nEqually, Obama came into the job at a time when most of the rest of the world was barely on speaking terms with the US and has had to rebuild bridges with all of the traditional allies beyond the ever loyal UK and Israel – although even they were looking edgy by the end of the bush era.\n\nEven getting up to the starting line has taken the better part of his first term, it would be folly to hand the country and the economy back to the same people who caused the problem in the first place [i] .\n\n[i] Steven Rattner. \"Ron Suskind’s inaccurate revisionism.\" Politico. October 1, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1d72665ffebee251b0d250f2a67ac13",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Obama has delivered some remarkable reforms in fantastically difficult circumstances\n\nOn matters as diverse as healthcare to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has pulled a whole series of rabbits out of the apparently impossible hat he inherited from Bush.\n\nAmong other surprises he took the lead in a G20 summit that produced $1.1tn to act as a bailout fund. He’s effectively resolved the catastrophes in two major conflict zones. He’s ensured that poor families actually stay in their homes. Increased funding for student loans, extended unemployment insurance at a time when 7,000 Americans a week were losing their benefits and, on top of all that he’s introduced a healthcare package that will give security and peace of mind to millions of Americans.\n\nAll of this has been accomplished in the face of extraordinary difficulties that were not of his making [i] .\n\n[i] Athleen Rosell. \"Devil's Advocate: Re-Elect Obama.\" The Daily Titan. April 19th, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdf43e10e32f19f55474aa6ab7ffd578",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Obamacare is neither one thing nor the other; even his flagship policy shows that Obama is always the politician and never the leader that the US needs\n\nObama managed to steer a bill that everyone disliked through Congress. He angered the Republicans, and lost the support of some democrats in congress, 39 voted against the bill, [i] as well as more than a few Democrat voters, and ended up watering it down enough that his own core supporters failed to show up for congressional elections in 2010. [ii]\n\nHe is reluctant to show leadership in any area of policy and when he does, as Mitt Romney puts it, acts more as “a politician in chief than a commander in chief” [iii] .\n\nFrom the outset the President has been considerably more about spin than substance, usually trying to pass off his own mistakes as those of someone else. Of course all politicians do this but, usually, they also do something else as well; Obama is a one trick pony.\n\n[i] Cannon, Carl M., ‘The 39 House Democrats who Voted Against Their Party’s Health Care Bill’, Politics Daily, 8 November 2009.\n\n[ii] Best, Samuel J. Best, ‘Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans’, CBS News, 3 November 2010.\n\n[iii] Mitt Romney. \"We need a leader, not a politician.\" USA Today. June 10th, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26c7cc1b28bb78551d1b8deb3c309a5e",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Obama has singularly failed to resolve Americas economic woes, which was the single largest issue when he was elected\n\nBeyond the rhetoric, beyond the inspirational speeches, there was one issue on voters’ minds when they supported Obama; the economy and jobs. He has simply failed to deliver.\n\nHe likes to portray himself as the master of public policy; a kind of philosopher king. However the reality couldn’t be further from the truth [i] . On the issue that has dominated international discourse since his election, the economic meltdown, he has simply failed to deliver. He accepted a fiscal stimulus package that contained plenty in the way of pork but little in terms of practicality. He has failed to create jobs, the unemployment rate is still at 9% up from 7.8% when he became President. [ii] And Obama has singularly failed to tackle the deficit, which has increased by $4 trillion since he took office, [iii] apparently seeming more interested in spending on unnecessary projects.\n\n[i] Jonah Goldberg. \"Where's the evidence Obama's a policy genius?\" National Review Online. October 9th, 2011\n\n[ii] Rogers, Simon, ‘US jobless date: how has unemployment changed under Obama?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 7 October 2011.\n\n[iii] Knoller, Mark, ‘National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama’, CBS News, 22 August 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5913a4ab7ac00820136031dbf95c8aa8",
"text": "economy general politics politics general government house would give obama Obama has no clear foreign policy agenda\n\nObama’s foreign policy to date has, frankly been a mess. He has failed to stand up to Iran and has allowed both Russia and China to take advantage of his ‘reset’ policy. He has ignored the growth of hostile powers while showing a similar disregard for America’s Allies.\n\nSimply by dint of not being Bush, Obama had the possibility of a huge upsurge in support overseas but he has tended to act more the clown than the statesman at international gatherings, for example insulting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G20 summit in Cannes; responding to French President Sarkozy he said \"You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.\" [i] Once again his desire to be the politician than the leader applies even at events where nobody has the vote. [ii] [iii]\n\n[i] FoxNews.com, ‘White House Silent on Conversation With French President Insulting Israeli Prime Minister’, 8 November 2011\n\n[ii] Nile Gardiner. \"Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days.\" The Telegraph. October 18th, 2011\n\n[iii] \"Goldberg: Obama, abroad, is adrift.\" LA Times. September 6th, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f5c4d0cb7494a2e099bec21186421f4c
|
Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector
The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1
The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.
Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.
Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining
|
[
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4d14c77ec1c9cf2c1c43d0e81749d3",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1\n\n“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d5eaec2854716122baf1c581b88f17",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2\n\nShepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\nDenholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2755c94ed02fa15017ab2c589b79ab1c",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1\n\n“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09db2bb5b3a5a81b24fc274167c1566d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1\n\n“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685915f85d67ac2c1d296701e07c212d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ff52cc29c17ef83fbf2923aa696b49a9
|
Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process
The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.
Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1
“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947
|
[
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f944cc5a2ceb8ff98a06cf48a7bb6a40",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\nBiggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d5eaec2854716122baf1c581b88f17",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2\n\nShepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\nDenholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2755c94ed02fa15017ab2c589b79ab1c",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1\n\n“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09db2bb5b3a5a81b24fc274167c1566d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1\n\n“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685915f85d67ac2c1d296701e07c212d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
02c02a785ba790554e636b44351182f7
|
Collective bargaining is not a right
Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.
Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.
Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2
Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry
Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/
|
[
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f944cc5a2ceb8ff98a06cf48a7bb6a40",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\nBiggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4d14c77ec1c9cf2c1c43d0e81749d3",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1\n\n“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2755c94ed02fa15017ab2c589b79ab1c",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1\n\n“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09db2bb5b3a5a81b24fc274167c1566d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1\n\n“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685915f85d67ac2c1d296701e07c212d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
065f401207630dcbf64afa3d5f9d3422
|
Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies
Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.
In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1
“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
|
[
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09db2bb5b3a5a81b24fc274167c1566d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1\n\n“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685915f85d67ac2c1d296701e07c212d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f944cc5a2ceb8ff98a06cf48a7bb6a40",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\nBiggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4d14c77ec1c9cf2c1c43d0e81749d3",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1\n\n“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d5eaec2854716122baf1c581b88f17",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2\n\nShepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\nDenholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
849bea6bdcce94f850d021bd5c52b333
|
Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy
Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.
In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.
Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.
In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1
“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html
|
[
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2755c94ed02fa15017ab2c589b79ab1c",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1\n\n“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685915f85d67ac2c1d296701e07c212d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f944cc5a2ceb8ff98a06cf48a7bb6a40",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\nBiggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4d14c77ec1c9cf2c1c43d0e81749d3",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1\n\n“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d5eaec2854716122baf1c581b88f17",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2\n\nShepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\nDenholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
eff15b2336b2dfc49d1d48f364f3ee69
|
Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right
Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.
This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1
Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1
|
[
{
"docid": "e18d8f9600fa5805802319c334b10aa2",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1\n\nDavey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8ff5307b8c59ee2ab1789b1ac2be01d6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1\n\nRabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e543dcecb89ba4f5feee14d48123f96",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1\n\n“Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e594345fa4fd181e278193bfee762d73",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2\n\n1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ef3bfa60475cc4bf7e37f6605eef55",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1\n\nBloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f65cbcc627f398ec001fed6673b60ed6",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2755c94ed02fa15017ab2c589b79ab1c",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1\n\n“Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09db2bb5b3a5a81b24fc274167c1566d",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1\n\n“Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f944cc5a2ceb8ff98a06cf48a7bb6a40",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\nBiggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4d14c77ec1c9cf2c1c43d0e81749d3",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1\n\n“Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d5eaec2854716122baf1c581b88f17",
"text": "employment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2\n\nShepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\nDenholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b7d405ba4bca8e249a819cfe92dc8edb
|
This will distribute wealth more evenly
As a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1
1 Michael J. Haupert, "The Economic History of Major League Baseball", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007
|
[
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f78145c3ee85eda88c88ae4fa7ab429f
|
Equality is in and of itself a good thing
Firstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.
1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , "The World's Happiest Countries", July 14th 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c0403a3a1704cd73a79ae502fe069a86
|
This will enable people to better choose their jobs
When wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.
|
[
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b17841405365203a7c145afdb1f99156
|
Systems for implementation
This system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.
|
[
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9cc48117423e72a94efd44f1ccb02265
|
This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources
Some resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.
1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006
|
[
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
670209843987f2762a17b97b800e904b
|
This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers
Many industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.
1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006
|
[
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b037ec07da9a82d92587ac8f286731c4
|
High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research
Many entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.
1 FierceBiotech , "GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders", March 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
601197564d4959e5f4fc9d2035ecd1c7
|
High salaries incentivize people to work hard
People respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.
1 PWC , "The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services", December 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1021910415a4af0e8fb7e40d2805cc21",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs\n\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.\n\n1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d789a7aac170f9c649541469c50a23d7
|
High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs
Some jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.
1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "db8da8492d5b4119ccac358cba57e260",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "700b689a9beb4a6a019bbcda5a67c61b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12592dc78cd696f2ad24a18aced5e0e9",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb6a0d2ca3538d9952caaea819f0f8b",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78704e128378e0a51ab0031e022e891",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68aca89868769e0168293f8e5f4a05e",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c55661331fe5f0232a0083781c78600",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365d5194dcee1a2fe8f320b45c6fa22",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b07909098d3ba7e786033b636b5f2a4",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.\n\n1 E . Feige, \"America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S\", January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda13b9e0460cd6f83c24c2856e69384",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers\n\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.\n\n1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65bdfe4b0ff01490855c981b7bc3332f",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research\n\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.\n\n1 FierceBiotech , \"GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders\", March 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6162e314525c04560dc8ed62cd13f338",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to work hard\n\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.\n\n1 PWC , \"The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services\", December 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03fb5199c2f994c9d8ba13a348a01acb",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will distribute wealth more evenly\n\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1\n\n1 Michael J. Haupert, \"The Economic History of Major League Baseball\", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed3083780f1b7d7b5d3f9544d6487ffa",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Equality is in and of itself a good thing\n\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.\n\n1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , \"The World's Happiest Countries\", July 14th 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a4165a066aef29afa4ca96af1ed94",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will enable people to better choose their jobs\n\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a315392212071bc34ec12fd0bfce83",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping Systems for implementation\n\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b7171981803a5d2ef2dbc612784f13",
"text": "business employment finance house would introduce mandatory salary capping This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources\n\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.\n\n1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
926cd0d7375d8219f8faff3c796ef1e0
|
Improving the quality of state managed education
State schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.
|
[
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad2128aaba2cb0904153ba419ec421f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Increasing parents' freedom of choice\n\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.\n\nFurther, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ae48a44a871fd1bb5f0d105718adb",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children\n\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6846ca6adaf965caa7f06d42798aed1",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice\n\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.\n\nThere will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cdfb6a5dafa95923fe08d8b5e23c5b4",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme\n\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.\n\nFurther, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001dfb0e249de17479dd2647952b9958",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory\n\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.\n\nWhen schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
13b4197c2638bb0db0216d1564663b8e
|
Increasing parents' freedom of choice
Different parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.
Further, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.
|
[
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6427bdb02838348646edd21d04fe81e",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Improving the quality of state managed education\n\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ae48a44a871fd1bb5f0d105718adb",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children\n\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6846ca6adaf965caa7f06d42798aed1",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice\n\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.\n\nThere will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cdfb6a5dafa95923fe08d8b5e23c5b4",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme\n\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.\n\nFurther, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001dfb0e249de17479dd2647952b9958",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory\n\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.\n\nWhen schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a1e03a036e736ba099d23a3ceeea8216
|
Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children
State education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.
|
[
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6427bdb02838348646edd21d04fe81e",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Improving the quality of state managed education\n\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad2128aaba2cb0904153ba419ec421f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Increasing parents' freedom of choice\n\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.\n\nFurther, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6846ca6adaf965caa7f06d42798aed1",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice\n\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.\n\nThere will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cdfb6a5dafa95923fe08d8b5e23c5b4",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme\n\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.\n\nFurther, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001dfb0e249de17479dd2647952b9958",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory\n\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.\n\nWhen schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
1bd0b83b86a1181432d953657a9ef99f
|
Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice
Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.
There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.
|
[
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cdfb6a5dafa95923fe08d8b5e23c5b4",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme\n\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.\n\nFurther, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001dfb0e249de17479dd2647952b9958",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory\n\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.\n\nWhen schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6427bdb02838348646edd21d04fe81e",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Improving the quality of state managed education\n\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad2128aaba2cb0904153ba419ec421f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Increasing parents' freedom of choice\n\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.\n\nFurther, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ae48a44a871fd1bb5f0d105718adb",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children\n\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7f3930fcc2b6b792b8a805c2e44e5797
|
The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme
Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.
Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.
|
[
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6846ca6adaf965caa7f06d42798aed1",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice\n\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.\n\nThere will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001dfb0e249de17479dd2647952b9958",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory\n\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.\n\nWhen schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6427bdb02838348646edd21d04fe81e",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Improving the quality of state managed education\n\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad2128aaba2cb0904153ba419ec421f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Increasing parents' freedom of choice\n\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.\n\nFurther, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ae48a44a871fd1bb5f0d105718adb",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children\n\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e2ff356f107297e8e1ebd20d55553728
|
The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory
The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.
When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.
|
[
{
"docid": "e8fce3b7f267fb335b3cf18099d063b8",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fb25a6cb8628940f8832659c95881471",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7d279dbf592cc642ab5e8b76cd9a7a",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1640c362d594a2870220cb6016a6a410",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfa5ac5133e7e1bf1a47799fd3c42a39",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.\n\nThus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7314fbb9e05af4860f4bd4f71e87567f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6846ca6adaf965caa7f06d42798aed1",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice\n\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.\n\nThere will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cdfb6a5dafa95923fe08d8b5e23c5b4",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme\n\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.\n\nFurther, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6427bdb02838348646edd21d04fe81e",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Improving the quality of state managed education\n\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad2128aaba2cb0904153ba419ec421f",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Increasing parents' freedom of choice\n\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.\n\nFurther, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ae48a44a871fd1bb5f0d105718adb",
"text": "tax education education general secondary house would fund education using Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children\n\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
247c5a33e3808d28d723a215aeea790f
|
Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector
The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]
The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.
Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.
[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining
|
[
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8f6fbea8001818f4d55a7ec0206cd76b
|
Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process
The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.
Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]
[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947
|
[
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8b729b36688edef5a9846e499d12f73f
|
Collective Bargaining is Not a Right
Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.
Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.
Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]
[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry
[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/
|
[
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9ec3d77409f603b9b68957ab47a64246
|
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion
The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.
Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]
[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947
|
[
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
cf65b2eb6ab27ad2753fda210c7f9c74
|
Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies
Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.
In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]
[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
|
[
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
decd43a0a4122773bcc71330a623bd15
|
Collective Bargaining is a Right.
Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.
This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]
[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1
|
[
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4943dfe7e480fcc61c277e379afa9784
|
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion
Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.
In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.
Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.
In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]
[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html
|
[
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
cf65b2eb6ab27ad2753fda210c7f9c74
|
Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies
Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.
In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]
[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
|
[
{
"docid": "b0fab1801e383db4e2f328da8be15d51",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f40f4043d78ef96aa41ba652acdb77a4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.\n\nFurther, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.\n\nFurther, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]\n\n[1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5a88f9456d798541c394e2ceb2a7f9",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]\n\n[1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4010c5213ff6c7714a35d2cdd6f7dc4",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.\n\nEven if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]\n\n[1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c855f7935df3a215e25ba1f3e32a3ad",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]\n\nAlthough the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]\n\n[1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura...\n\n[2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebea3280c96f1e85d53dd1656f9da0af",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.\n\nGiven that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7141405d8caa2983f1b20477866b5935",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.\n\nCollective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]\n\nFurther, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cebbf40416ddc63d3b8ea5eab7910e91",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies\n\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.\n\nIn the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]\n\n[1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d3e7ad766595ee81c760c9db30e73c",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is a Right.\n\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.\n\nThis is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]\n\n[1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd82b14886501a5b7c0d022f906fdb40",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.\n\nIn this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.\n\nSpecifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.\n\nIn order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]\n\n[1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c244d194e073d033ae332bcde7fdbe92",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector\n\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]\n\nThe reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.\n\nFurther, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.\n\n[1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfed64886b051b81467b1e0a5435ea5",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9903acf8626cfd6c60958908b5c8d075",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Not a Right\n\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.\n\nUnions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.\n\nFurther, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]\n\n[1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry\n\n[2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad64f72a930d01cb938551f32c554d8",
"text": "economic policy employment house would abolish collective bargaining rights Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion\n\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.\n\nEven though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]\n\n[1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
be1c305347d00308cd5c6865f7c821d4
|
NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.
Trade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.
1Kevin Kelley, "Good NAFTA?," Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.
2Renee G. Scherlen, "Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election," Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.
3Sam Dillon, "Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat," New York Times, July 13, 2000.
4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do," Business Week, December 22, 2003.
|
[
{
"docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"> Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, <\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6230e4ec5e3b4e8c1eb0e9e0bac328b9",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade\n\nThe increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.\n\n1 Marla Dickerson, \"NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls,\" Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.\n\n2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers,\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cd37690fba1033838d92adacd719a1c",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has benefitted Canada.\n\nCanada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.\n\n1 Lee Hudson Teslik, \"NAFTA's Economic Impact,\" Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.\n\n2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, \"Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success,\" BNET, January 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9471a25c35fd34a0887ce709cf2f96b",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.\n\nBy expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c51c38a7a337f974af9a6edde021003f",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.\n\nIn reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee053c2bd575172880493b331b5eaa15",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.\n\nUnder NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n\n2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004.\n\n3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
609de2caa037669dee37a5080a8572d4
|
NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.
Under NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.
1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004.
2 "The Sun Belt NAFTA Case." Sun Belt Water, 2004.
3 Kerr, Jim. "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues." March 10, 2004.
|
[
{
"docid": "b130565be663d09480bc72cfca16c04e",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.\n\n1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... \"> Jim Kerr, \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues,\" March 10, 2004, <\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c8e4b329fa85a2ef4a6cdbda5defb357",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.\n\n1 Thomas L. Friedman, \"The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,\" (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "142bde9d46213f82c874ad549e1e9fbb",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cf673d57c20d1a80f39fda854f03909",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.\n\n1Amy Clark, \"Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?,\" CBS, February 11, 2009.\n\n2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c6733bfac657c15258c9eb2c132b3f",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ca07a4f6fc2d4c3e31a1469f25d378",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8e82c19298afe65c6fbb0c8cfabbc99",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6588777962ce79881ede122551be0748",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.\n\n1Paul Magnusson, \"Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?\" Business Week, May 8, 2000.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b00015aef7a5855a529e6db7e93e5d5",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c51c38a7a337f974af9a6edde021003f",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.\n\nIn reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5a5fa87b79d303b84f001b59cca61ec",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.\n\nAlthough NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.\n\n1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do.\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n\n2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA.\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd5d4713a69d9f28c5bca2ecb1247449",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.\n\nAs NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.\n\n1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers.\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "449adc4a83a9cf4d39d3e242cce686a5",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.\n\nUS farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.\n\n1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6230e4ec5e3b4e8c1eb0e9e0bac328b9",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade\n\nThe increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.\n\n1 Marla Dickerson, \"NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls,\" Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.\n\n2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, \"Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers,\" Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca9776d53968dc4cf83ae765cb088b16",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.\n\nTrade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.\n\n1Kevin Kelley, \"Good NAFTA?,\" Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.\n\n2Renee G. Scherlen, \"Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election,\" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.\n\n3Sam Dillon, \"Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat,\" New York Times, July 13, 2000.\n\n4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, \"Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do,\" Business Week, December 22, 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cd37690fba1033838d92adacd719a1c",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has benefitted Canada.\n\nCanada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.\n\n1 Lee Hudson Teslik, \"NAFTA's Economic Impact,\" Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.\n\n2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, \"Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success,\" BNET, January 2004.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9471a25c35fd34a0887ce709cf2f96b",
"text": "economic policy international americas house believes nafta has benefitted all NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.\n\nBy expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0a6a8a3405c3155b6929598c84f3a105
|
Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on
Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]
As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option." [3
Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]
Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.
The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]
Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]
Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]
This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.
[1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
|
[
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
754a8776b330af2efd4e3d5f46904577
|
The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo
Social Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]
As a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]
Social Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]
In many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]
Faced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]
[1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html
[2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html
[3] San Diego Union Tribune. "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html
[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;
[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad12d4e4ba2c8a5ccabfc7e65ef6811",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on\n\nPrivate accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]\n\nAs Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\" [3\n\nSocial Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]\n\nSecondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.\n\nThe current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]\n\nMoreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]\n\nThis would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.\n\n[1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3ad706f0551bec2174bc30b5a0e58c2d
|
Privatising social security would improve economic growth
Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future." [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor." [2]
Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]
Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.
Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.
[1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...
[2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf
[4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?
|
[
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad12d4e4ba2c8a5ccabfc7e65ef6811",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on\n\nPrivate accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]\n\nAs Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\" [3\n\nSocial Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]\n\nSecondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.\n\nThe current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]\n\nMoreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]\n\nThis would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.\n\n[1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
390257d78c794a09162ab883f404e30f
|
Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth
Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.
An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers." [2]
The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]
Contrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.
Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]
While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]
[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
[3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html
[4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html
[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad12d4e4ba2c8a5ccabfc7e65ef6811",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on\n\nPrivate accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]\n\nAs Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\" [3\n\nSocial Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]\n\nSecondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.\n\nThe current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]\n\nMoreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]\n\nThis would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.\n\n[1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
613f7171ad952f8bba17138605795866
|
Privatising social security will harm retirees
As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.
The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]
The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]
If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]
It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.
[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19
[3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html
[4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html
[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad12d4e4ba2c8a5ccabfc7e65ef6811",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on\n\nPrivate accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]\n\nAs Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\" [3\n\nSocial Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]\n\nSecondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.\n\nThe current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]\n\nMoreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]\n\nThis would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.\n\n[1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7123a6c8df869cdb0ece4855b6c06c31
|
The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent
Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)
Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]
Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: " has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one." [2]
Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]
There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: "You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both." These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.
[1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...
[2] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...
[3] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...
[4] Dick, Stephen. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...
|
[
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad12d4e4ba2c8a5ccabfc7e65ef6811",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on\n\nPrivate accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]\n\nAs Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\" [3\n\nSocial Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]\n\nSecondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.\n\nThe current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]\n\nMoreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]\n\nThis would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.\n\n[1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
198452ca6b339319fc9563d56ac690b0
|
A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty
Many of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.
During the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.
Intrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.
(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf
(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34
|
[
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9fc0ff73273276e0479d61715f0f1927
|
The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members
The European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)
This is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.
(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless
|
[
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f77c54941698476e5ca3a060581966ba
|
A European political union is by necessity undemocratic
The EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.
The democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).
This poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.
(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/
(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263
(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html
|
[
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c04f9cdec46ca1953d47b21bc97c5782
|
A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union
The European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.
|
[
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
43f6cd5e3b8a32eda4009033d409b0a7
|
Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks
Linking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.
(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/
|
[
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
33b035f38215fe320e494c107ebd6d1b
|
Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc
Trust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).
A single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.
(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/
|
[
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6a0e393f969bdd42df3222fd128f2c7c
|
Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery
What is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.
(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter
(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/
|
[
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
62576933e10c532dbaf0c491cd1c4a9a
|
European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies
The political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.
(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm
(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis
|
[
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a68352cf5d6ebc53ea70281ad04b45f",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy\n\nThe EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.\n\n(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7353af363da6f7f23ab3d5ebf0873b15
|
The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy
The EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.
(17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340412331304606#.Um7QIvkvnZ4
|
[
{
"docid": "0a21efe57d0d5df14b2fa8b0fde05a12",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.\n\nThe example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.\n\n(18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005. http://www.fride.org/download/OTR_Debutante_ENG_oct05.pdf\n\n(19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013. http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-test-case-for-eu-democracy_67257\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b4967954d51ef2f45225b7d9d6e27fa",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a341f3d38418b68e7dd72da3df0bb9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)\n\n(22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/economy/house-would-abolish-single-european-currency\n\n(23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013. http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/the-case-for-political-union-isnt-convincing/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27cf3e8a562394e01ad9498dc3183ab9",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.\n\nA trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb896c3588a9a0cc687bcb3370dbb36",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.\n\nFurthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).\n\n(25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/eu-and-nobel-peace-prize\n\n(26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013. http://eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/07/soros-blames-merkel-for-golden-dawn/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d3c21cc56df3447d8506c67ddf4edb3",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.\n\nAs regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.\n\n(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.\n\n(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bc740952bab0c01de80539c6865be32",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.\n\n(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e012eaea4d9b463cec503f7fe958904",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.\n\nDistilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.\n\n(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f608ecafa8455da3106d49a1e6bdee1",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.\n\nEven if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bfa4eaebbc73ed40c52f35d00c65cce",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks\n\nLinking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.\n\n(24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2012/announce-2012/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c07e1a4b7840c0504188116f353368",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc\n\nTrust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).\n\nA single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.\n\n(16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3942cd57b317056fde295e23365d349b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery\n\nWhat is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.\n\n(20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/eurozone-political-union-germany-firefighter\n\n(21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a058dc1320611f3cc40d99b612227e7",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies\n\nThe political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.\n\n(15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/index_en.htm\n\n(27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/07/spanish-youth-germany-unemployment-crisis\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a76c222c45a9caf3630b8f30f99916",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty\n\nMany of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.\n\nDuring the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.\n\nIntrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.\n\n(7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf\n\n(8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007. http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=34\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4028a052ecadbf356ae074fff5bf0c6b",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members\n\nThe European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)\n\nThis is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.\n\n(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff2fb13ec923bc250754647e9dcd72f8",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European political union is by necessity undemocratic\n\nThe EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.\n\nThe democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).\n\nThis poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.\n\n(4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/about/\n\n(5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013. http://euobserver.com/agenda/121263\n\n(6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-unpopular-elections-who-is-to-blame-for-eu-voter-apathy-a-627958.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2774f0944c679a07ed949421821578",
"text": "eurozone crisis economy general international europe house believes european A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union\n\nThe European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a95b1cd50de4ab564a67b6e63a75ac5b
|
Forced evictions are a natural path of development.
Forced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.
Secondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.
[1] Temple, 2008
|
[
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
61ba2ff5d0be45fc9677dcdaa378da3a
|
Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.
A key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.
Recently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.
|
[
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e9df97f73b23e1b866bcea6109e543b1
|
Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.
Africa is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.
Mega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.
[1] Worldstat info, 2013
[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).
|
[
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
20165f22d433b22cf14d92b28e3cfeaf
|
Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.
Western media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.
In 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .
[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.
|
[
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2715e90bc86878082e65ce316ad1c5b9
|
Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.
Slums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.
This has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).
[1] Fox, 2013.
[2] Tibaijuka, 2004
[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.
|
[
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ac86dff89e612ae9aea2c684767f8665
|
The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.
Across African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.
Alternatives need to be introduced and considered.
[1] Agutamba, 2013
|
[
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
351a25cea8292648bef6b5786a7b0c26
|
Forced evictions are political land grabbing.
Politics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.
Further, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.
[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.
[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.
|
[
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0b8c10e32ce10b65954dbcee3b0b3302
|
Denying individuals rights to the city commons.
Forced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.
For example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .
[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.
|
[
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a384731773acf73b8044141f0182fbb1
|
African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.
There is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.
African cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?
[1] Potts, 2009.
|
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5ebf53a4fdccdc9b15ba625e03fc874b
|
Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.
Forced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.
[1] Amnesty International Campaign.
[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.
|
[
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df815223c3aa619f7e076744ca41e1d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are political land grabbing.\n\nPolitics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.\n\nFurther, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.\n\n[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.\n\n[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4fe1facbabcd47dcfbff7f72ab5b2295
|
A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable
A graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.
|
[
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
484946a19e5c21ce9f625d598685c68b
|
A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable
A graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.
|
[
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7c7d6cdb6c060813bc5d9f61ca0dbc22
|
Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education
A graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.
|
[
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ef8a467c7613481452f62a299dc1c633
|
Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available
There are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.
|
[
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6fa7b8f5c289ec12351c8549d4d18b15
|
Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments
As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.
|
[
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d48b7e61979e226bea190d3bc7583836
|
Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive
A graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.
|
[
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "858117c0cb3f91de8609034a52101b7f",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities\n\nIf a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
22022a0ce4a4bbc02d55b3c68d0e57f4
|
A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities
If a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.
|
[
{
"docid": "33243aafae34e60f552edd96838575a2",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d7f6cd6c73c0165df7663c8b73c0e4d4",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ac213250d9f66e94a92baa61262479",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb15d3c8029d6fb9fc6ac5fea2596980",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e97353880210006c93d718faa89fcca",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53201da75d3d2f6a3624040443b7935",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "694d9a3148b6e3777d89f0528cd92d9c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62448a8127af4f7f0e7cdc386bb3177a",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available\n\nThere are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca912734851e5f21b3df062d255172e",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments\n\nAs taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6734f5339d7a6fa632f020a18658717",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive\n\nA graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11c57dd41c05ab5a8fd8320e5c7d6d8",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable\n\nA graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea43a126b1d26a95dfb0deeb48ee7ba3",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable\n\nA graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09462cad0eed7185fc01160be4cef31c",
"text": "employment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education\n\nA graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f4bf972c9ec43d0835caf804c03b2a9d
|
SWFs can harm national security
Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or private equity groups, which seek only to maximise their investors’ returns, SWFs must be regarded as political entities. Rather than passively holding their assets, they may seek to use their purchases to gain access to natural resources, advanced technologies, including those crucial to our defence, or other strategic sectors. [1] For example Gulf states are using their SWFs to invest in food and natural resources from Latin America. [2] They may engage in economic nationalism, shutting factories in western countries to give an unfair advantage to their own industries [3] . While it has not yet happened they may even attempt economic blackmail, threatening to turn off the lights through their control of energy companies and utilities if governments do not fall in with their foreign policy aims. Allowing countries such as China, Russia and various Gulf states to buy up western companies at will is potentially very dangerous. Even if we regard these states as friendly at the moment, there is no guarantee that they will stay that way, especially as none of them share our political values.
[1] Lyons, Gerard, ‘State Capitalism: The rise of sovereign wealth funds’, 2007, p.14 http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/111407_Lyons.pdf
[2] Pearson, Samantha, ‘Sovereign wealth funds: Foreign cash has its drawbacks’, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e4f274-6ef5-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz...
[3] Balin, Bryan J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Critical Analysis’, 2008, p.4, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/11501.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "0488a719a8237d73d47e9c9256684f8c",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to. [1] In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund. Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies.\n\n[1] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b3e96a4230e2a39a64efb4c914f77063",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. [1] Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions.\n\n[1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf76c15b1984da5565496d9f7fbf46fe",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth While it may be true that the state is often a bad manager of assets and businesses in this case the state is not usually involved in the management of the assets. This is being done through the wealth fund which is often in large part run by people whose background is in finance rather than in government. This use of external independent asset managers in itself should be enough to ease worries over state control. [1] Because SWFs don’t seek to have control over the majority of the businesses they invest in discredited government economic planning is not an issue. [2] Indeed SWFs are operating much more like private companies than state owned enterprises.\n\n[1] Mezzacapo, Simone, ‘The so-called “Sovereign Wealth Funds”: regulatory issues, financial stability and prudential supervision’, 2009, p.46. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15064_en.pdf\n\n[2] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ae0626c6910f4dedf8f7862acc4156",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater. [1] Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. Many have agreed to the Santiago Principles which encourage transparency and disclosure of financial information. [2] It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly.\n\n[1] Avendaño, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, ‘Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds’, 2009, p.9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/44301172.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6b6f286ac80d33ef8c0ebee47f356f8",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign wealth funds are not new and they are still only a tiny part of the global financial system. They represent only about 2% of global traded securities, and are dwarfed by other financial actors such as mutual funds, or private equity groups and hedge funds. [1] What is more, in comparison with these other players in the global financial system, SWFs are long-term investors looking many years, even decades into the future. This means that they are likely to bring calm, rather than irrational volatility to markets, as they will not be rushed into dumping assets based on a few months of bad data.\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "430640af234dae7518a347cb058d4010",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are emerging economies with limited financial expertise available to them, and they are not equipped to invest the money wisely. This has led to SWFs paying inflated prices for dodgy western companies, whose share price has subsequently collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of national wealth for example China Investment Corporation lost $500million on Blackstone, Qatar Investment Authority may have lost as much as $2billion in its attempt to buy Sainsburys. [1] Surely it would be better to invest the money at home, or even return it to their people in the form of lower taxes.\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35f453517c3a2546743d3a80c0e1fd93",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth The amounts sovereign wealth funds invest in the poorest countries is tiny compared to their overall portfolio. In 2008 the head of the World Bank Robert Zollick was attempting to persuade sovereign wealth funds to invest just 1% of their assets in Africa. [1] Investment by SWFs in Africa is not all good. Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world (not all of the SWFs) have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. Sudan for example has sold 400,000 hectares to the United Arab Emirates. [2] This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media.\n\n[1] Stilwell Amy, and Chopra, Geetanjali S., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa, Zoellick Says’, 2008. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21711325~pag...\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘Buying farmland abroad, Outsourcing’s third wave’, 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/13692889\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cb04f7c692a5e8755764b9894acf5e9",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds will likely stimulate wider protectionism anyway if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5097649298ef2ceea0095a824edd295",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign Wealth Funds could potentially help the financial system but they will only do so if it is in the national interest of their country to do so. It is this political dimension that is the reason for more regulation. Moreover regulation of SWFs will not prevent these funds from helping the global financial system. They will still be free to invest. Moreover it does not reduce the incentives for them to do so either, regulation will make no difference to a state’s motivations in a time of crisis – the national interest will remain key.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f79a4a7e6f07252ac4c8b996f3e36d2",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated\n\nA number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some, such as Gilson and Milhaupt, have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock. [1] Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business without government approval within the country the SWF is investing in [2] – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy. At the same time such rules would prevent any broader protectionist backlash so the Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves could welcome the regulation.\n\n[1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...\n\n[2] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbdaa1f47874cb0610e08c020ba40f26",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent\n\nSovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain secrecy about the size of their funds and the extent of their holdings, their accountability to government, their investment strategies and their approach to risk management. Without knowing these things, it is impossible to gauge whether political or economic objectives will dominate the SWFs’ behaviour, or indeed whether they will make safe and responsible shareholders in any business – secrecy breeds corruption. For these reasons, Jeffrey Garten of Yale has argued that SWFs should be obliged to publish independently audited accounts twice a year. He has also pointed out that many countries operating SWFs protect their domestic economy from foreign competition and investment. We should demand reciprocity, so that countries seeking investments abroad must open up their own economies fully before they are allowed to hold significant assets elsewhere. [1]\n\n[1] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b81af9c8eea9de3524c847b968be03a",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign wealth funds can undermine economic independence\n\nSovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. The already exceed the assets controlled by hedge funds and will surpass the stock of global foreign exchange reserves. [1] They are now so big that their activities can shift markets, such as Norway’s Government Pension Fund did when short selling Iceland’s banks, leading to panic and instability when they sell assets suddenly. [2] Their purchases can mean that companies owned by other states can end up dominating the economies of smaller countries, undermining their own sovereignty and economic independence. It is also worrying that many SWFs are controlled by undemocratic states which have a questionable commitment to capitalism; should we allow such states to exercise so much power over our economies?\n\n[1] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008, http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8565738b0a6bd98f3f0f85547e16845",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth State ownership is not a good way of controlling funds\n\nThe ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy pursued by almost every government over the past 25 years. In the 1970s many states owned nationalised industries as part of an attempt at socialist economic planning that has now been discredited. State ownership distorted incentives, interfered with management and produced decades of underinvestment, poor service to consumers, and national economic failure with the most extreme example being the Soviet Union itself. Since the 1980s countries everywhere have followed the example of Thatcher’s Britain and privatised their industries, freeing them to compete efficiently and to generate more wealth and jobs than they had ever done in state hands. Going back to state ownership of business is a dangerous backward step, especially as it is now foreign governments that are doing the nationalising.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "769b31e82ab7595744e377c73136c64f",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs can help the financial system in times of trouble\n\nSovereign wealth funds should be credited with coming to the rescue of the global financial system during the turmoil of 2008. With their long-term horizons for a return on their investments they have been willing to provide billions of dollars in new capital to distressed companies, at a time when other sources of funding have headed for the door. [1] Their money has allowed firms to continue trading and so safeguarded jobs at a time of great uncertainty. It has also helped prevent complete collapse of global equities prices, on which many people, through their pension funds, depend for a secure future. Moreover unlike some other types of funds such as hedge funds SWFs have an interest in keeping the global economy stable and reducing the impact of any downturns as their own country is bound to be affected by global economic conditions so responsible investment practices are encouraged. SWFs therefore “can play a shock-absorbing role in global financial markets”. [2]\n\n[1] Beck, Roland, and Fidora, Michael, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds – Before and Since the Crisis’, 2009, p.363. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6245144&...\n\n[2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ec31777fdd626033b31bba5565d0c0",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.\n\nDeveloped countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s (at the time known as Persia) oil wealth. [1] The developed world is always willing to buy assets on the cheap, as shown by American banks buying up Asian banks during the Asian Financial crisis at the end of the 1990s. [2] Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, their investments have already surpassed the IMF and World bank’s, [3] boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies.\n\n[1] BP, ‘Our history’. http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=10&content...\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n\n[3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Africa and the future’. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/kampanjer/refleks/innspill/afrika/ci...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a1ade19bdb449d74f4f075bdaba14d7",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs represent good economic management by countries with surpluses\n\nSovereign wealth funds are highly beneficial for states with large financial surpluses. Traditionally they have been run by resource-rich countries which wish to diversify their assets to smooth out the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on their economies and revenues. The fund can then be drawn down then prices are low. [1] Indeed 30 of 38 SWFs in 2008 were established for such a stabilization role. [2] By holding investments abroad, oil-rich countries such as Qatar and Norway have also built up valuable national reserves against the day when their fossil fuels eventually run out. Kiribati, a pacific island country, put aside wealth from mining guano from fertilizer. Now the guano is all mined but the $400million fund boosts the island’s GDP by a sixth. [3] In any case, allowing all the income from natural resources into your domestic economy is well known to lead to wasteful investments and higher inflation – better to manage the revenues responsibly by using them to create wealth for the future. More recently many Asian countries with big current account surpluses and massive government reserves have sought higher returns than they could get through more traditional investment in US Treasury bonds. Again, this is a responsible strategy pursued by states seeking to do their best for their citizens.\n\n[1] Ziemba, Rachel, ‘Where are the sovereign wealth funds?’, 2008, http://qn.som.yale.edu/content/where-are-sovereign-wealth-funds\n\n[2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n\n[3] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "421a1456d3843b4c0400b4145666f804",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Restricting SWFs is protectionism\n\nRestricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. Western countries oppose protectionism when it is from other countries preventing western companies investing so it would be hypocritical to want protectionism against those same countries buying the firms that want so much to invest in emerging markets. [1] It should be remembered that almost 40% of SWF assets are controlled by SWFs from advanced industrialised states. [2] As a result SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO. Finally as with all protectionism there is the risk that the SWFs will pull out their wealth and not invest as a result of protectionism resulting in lost jobs or jobs that would otherwise be created going somewhere more hospitable to SWFs. [3]\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n\n[2] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘BRIC by BRIC: The emergent regime for sovereign wealth funds’, 2008, p.5. http://danieldrezner.com/research/swf1.pdf\n\n[3] Ibid, p10\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f3a39e8744a8aba06fca80756e38b422
|
Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated
A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some, such as Gilson and Milhaupt, have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock. [1] Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business without government approval within the country the SWF is investing in [2] – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy. At the same time such rules would prevent any broader protectionist backlash so the Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves could welcome the regulation.
[1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...
[2] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...
|
[
{
"docid": "b3e96a4230e2a39a64efb4c914f77063",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. [1] Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions.\n\n[1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0488a719a8237d73d47e9c9256684f8c",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to. [1] In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund. Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies.\n\n[1] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf76c15b1984da5565496d9f7fbf46fe",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth While it may be true that the state is often a bad manager of assets and businesses in this case the state is not usually involved in the management of the assets. This is being done through the wealth fund which is often in large part run by people whose background is in finance rather than in government. This use of external independent asset managers in itself should be enough to ease worries over state control. [1] Because SWFs don’t seek to have control over the majority of the businesses they invest in discredited government economic planning is not an issue. [2] Indeed SWFs are operating much more like private companies than state owned enterprises.\n\n[1] Mezzacapo, Simone, ‘The so-called “Sovereign Wealth Funds”: regulatory issues, financial stability and prudential supervision’, 2009, p.46. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15064_en.pdf\n\n[2] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ae0626c6910f4dedf8f7862acc4156",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater. [1] Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. Many have agreed to the Santiago Principles which encourage transparency and disclosure of financial information. [2] It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly.\n\n[1] Avendaño, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, ‘Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds’, 2009, p.9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/44301172.pdf\n\n[2] Ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6b6f286ac80d33ef8c0ebee47f356f8",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign wealth funds are not new and they are still only a tiny part of the global financial system. They represent only about 2% of global traded securities, and are dwarfed by other financial actors such as mutual funds, or private equity groups and hedge funds. [1] What is more, in comparison with these other players in the global financial system, SWFs are long-term investors looking many years, even decades into the future. This means that they are likely to bring calm, rather than irrational volatility to markets, as they will not be rushed into dumping assets based on a few months of bad data.\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "430640af234dae7518a347cb058d4010",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are emerging economies with limited financial expertise available to them, and they are not equipped to invest the money wisely. This has led to SWFs paying inflated prices for dodgy western companies, whose share price has subsequently collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of national wealth for example China Investment Corporation lost $500million on Blackstone, Qatar Investment Authority may have lost as much as $2billion in its attempt to buy Sainsburys. [1] Surely it would be better to invest the money at home, or even return it to their people in the form of lower taxes.\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35f453517c3a2546743d3a80c0e1fd93",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth The amounts sovereign wealth funds invest in the poorest countries is tiny compared to their overall portfolio. In 2008 the head of the World Bank Robert Zollick was attempting to persuade sovereign wealth funds to invest just 1% of their assets in Africa. [1] Investment by SWFs in Africa is not all good. Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world (not all of the SWFs) have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. Sudan for example has sold 400,000 hectares to the United Arab Emirates. [2] This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media.\n\n[1] Stilwell Amy, and Chopra, Geetanjali S., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa, Zoellick Says’, 2008. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21711325~pag...\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘Buying farmland abroad, Outsourcing’s third wave’, 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/13692889\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cb04f7c692a5e8755764b9894acf5e9",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds will likely stimulate wider protectionism anyway if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5097649298ef2ceea0095a824edd295",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign Wealth Funds could potentially help the financial system but they will only do so if it is in the national interest of their country to do so. It is this political dimension that is the reason for more regulation. Moreover regulation of SWFs will not prevent these funds from helping the global financial system. They will still be free to invest. Moreover it does not reduce the incentives for them to do so either, regulation will make no difference to a state’s motivations in a time of crisis – the national interest will remain key.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43a96ceefb177dcd1f984e37766d8ec0",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs can harm national security\n\nSovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or private equity groups, which seek only to maximise their investors’ returns, SWFs must be regarded as political entities. Rather than passively holding their assets, they may seek to use their purchases to gain access to natural resources, advanced technologies, including those crucial to our defence, or other strategic sectors. [1] For example Gulf states are using their SWFs to invest in food and natural resources from Latin America. [2] They may engage in economic nationalism, shutting factories in western countries to give an unfair advantage to their own industries [3] . While it has not yet happened they may even attempt economic blackmail, threatening to turn off the lights through their control of energy companies and utilities if governments do not fall in with their foreign policy aims. Allowing countries such as China, Russia and various Gulf states to buy up western companies at will is potentially very dangerous. Even if we regard these states as friendly at the moment, there is no guarantee that they will stay that way, especially as none of them share our political values.\n\n[1] Lyons, Gerard, ‘State Capitalism: The rise of sovereign wealth funds’, 2007, p.14 http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/111407_Lyons.pdf\n\n[2] Pearson, Samantha, ‘Sovereign wealth funds: Foreign cash has its drawbacks’, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e4f274-6ef5-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz...\n\n[3] Balin, Bryan J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Critical Analysis’, 2008, p.4, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/11501.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbdaa1f47874cb0610e08c020ba40f26",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent\n\nSovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain secrecy about the size of their funds and the extent of their holdings, their accountability to government, their investment strategies and their approach to risk management. Without knowing these things, it is impossible to gauge whether political or economic objectives will dominate the SWFs’ behaviour, or indeed whether they will make safe and responsible shareholders in any business – secrecy breeds corruption. For these reasons, Jeffrey Garten of Yale has argued that SWFs should be obliged to publish independently audited accounts twice a year. He has also pointed out that many countries operating SWFs protect their domestic economy from foreign competition and investment. We should demand reciprocity, so that countries seeking investments abroad must open up their own economies fully before they are allowed to hold significant assets elsewhere. [1]\n\n[1] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b81af9c8eea9de3524c847b968be03a",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Sovereign wealth funds can undermine economic independence\n\nSovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. The already exceed the assets controlled by hedge funds and will surpass the stock of global foreign exchange reserves. [1] They are now so big that their activities can shift markets, such as Norway’s Government Pension Fund did when short selling Iceland’s banks, leading to panic and instability when they sell assets suddenly. [2] Their purchases can mean that companies owned by other states can end up dominating the economies of smaller countries, undermining their own sovereignty and economic independence. It is also worrying that many SWFs are controlled by undemocratic states which have a questionable commitment to capitalism; should we allow such states to exercise so much power over our economies?\n\n[1] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008, http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8565738b0a6bd98f3f0f85547e16845",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth State ownership is not a good way of controlling funds\n\nThe ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy pursued by almost every government over the past 25 years. In the 1970s many states owned nationalised industries as part of an attempt at socialist economic planning that has now been discredited. State ownership distorted incentives, interfered with management and produced decades of underinvestment, poor service to consumers, and national economic failure with the most extreme example being the Soviet Union itself. Since the 1980s countries everywhere have followed the example of Thatcher’s Britain and privatised their industries, freeing them to compete efficiently and to generate more wealth and jobs than they had ever done in state hands. Going back to state ownership of business is a dangerous backward step, especially as it is now foreign governments that are doing the nationalising.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "769b31e82ab7595744e377c73136c64f",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs can help the financial system in times of trouble\n\nSovereign wealth funds should be credited with coming to the rescue of the global financial system during the turmoil of 2008. With their long-term horizons for a return on their investments they have been willing to provide billions of dollars in new capital to distressed companies, at a time when other sources of funding have headed for the door. [1] Their money has allowed firms to continue trading and so safeguarded jobs at a time of great uncertainty. It has also helped prevent complete collapse of global equities prices, on which many people, through their pension funds, depend for a secure future. Moreover unlike some other types of funds such as hedge funds SWFs have an interest in keeping the global economy stable and reducing the impact of any downturns as their own country is bound to be affected by global economic conditions so responsible investment practices are encouraged. SWFs therefore “can play a shock-absorbing role in global financial markets”. [2]\n\n[1] Beck, Roland, and Fidora, Michael, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds – Before and Since the Crisis’, 2009, p.363. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6245144&...\n\n[2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ec31777fdd626033b31bba5565d0c0",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.\n\nDeveloped countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s (at the time known as Persia) oil wealth. [1] The developed world is always willing to buy assets on the cheap, as shown by American banks buying up Asian banks during the Asian Financial crisis at the end of the 1990s. [2] Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, their investments have already surpassed the IMF and World bank’s, [3] boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies.\n\n[1] BP, ‘Our history’. http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=10&content...\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n\n[3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Africa and the future’. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/kampanjer/refleks/innspill/afrika/ci...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a1ade19bdb449d74f4f075bdaba14d7",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth SWFs represent good economic management by countries with surpluses\n\nSovereign wealth funds are highly beneficial for states with large financial surpluses. Traditionally they have been run by resource-rich countries which wish to diversify their assets to smooth out the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on their economies and revenues. The fund can then be drawn down then prices are low. [1] Indeed 30 of 38 SWFs in 2008 were established for such a stabilization role. [2] By holding investments abroad, oil-rich countries such as Qatar and Norway have also built up valuable national reserves against the day when their fossil fuels eventually run out. Kiribati, a pacific island country, put aside wealth from mining guano from fertilizer. Now the guano is all mined but the $400million fund boosts the island’s GDP by a sixth. [3] In any case, allowing all the income from natural resources into your domestic economy is well known to lead to wasteful investments and higher inflation – better to manage the revenues responsibly by using them to create wealth for the future. More recently many Asian countries with big current account surpluses and massive government reserves have sought higher returns than they could get through more traditional investment in US Treasury bonds. Again, this is a responsible strategy pursued by states seeking to do their best for their citizens.\n\n[1] Ziemba, Rachel, ‘Where are the sovereign wealth funds?’, 2008, http://qn.som.yale.edu/content/where-are-sovereign-wealth-funds\n\n[2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm\n\n[3] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10533428\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "421a1456d3843b4c0400b4145666f804",
"text": "finance economy general house would act regulate activities sovereign wealth Restricting SWFs is protectionism\n\nRestricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. Western countries oppose protectionism when it is from other countries preventing western companies investing so it would be hypocritical to want protectionism against those same countries buying the firms that want so much to invest in emerging markets. [1] It should be remembered that almost 40% of SWF assets are controlled by SWFs from advanced industrialised states. [2] As a result SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO. Finally as with all protectionism there is the risk that the SWFs will pull out their wealth and not invest as a result of protectionism resulting in lost jobs or jobs that would otherwise be created going somewhere more hospitable to SWFs. [3]\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735\n\n[2] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘BRIC by BRIC: The emergent regime for sovereign wealth funds’, 2008, p.5. http://danieldrezner.com/research/swf1.pdf\n\n[3] Ibid, p10\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.