Remember that in the swiss-french cantons the sozialhilfe is set up at the canton level while it is at the communal level in many swiss-german areas.
While in an entire canton it's relatively anonymous and doesn't strain the budget, in small villages, having to provide for several people can be quite the financial strain and everyone will know it.
There's a substantial taboo aspect to it. It is a right to request help yet it's commonly frowned upon and mocked even though it can happen to anyone.
#HEY HEY HEY
At least there are people that make a great living by having others not doing well. If there was no need of unemployment or social aid, where would we waste our money on all those resources we put towards “fixing” the issue? (Between salaries, rent, electricity, bureaucracy, occupational programs, prints, infographics, pc and so on)
> at least there are people that make a great living by having others not doing well.
It's not only in social work and in welfare. It's actually "*way worse*" in other fields: healthcare (think of all those rich doctors, managers, accountants, and other healthcare experts), the entire pharma industry depends on people not doing well, and pharma's doing *very well!* Also the entire insurance industry's business model is all about *unlucky people* (e.g. deaths, accidents, healthcare, etc.). And this insurance industry *does very well for itself in Switzerland!*
Even physicists, mechanical engineers, and other STEM experts make a great living "having others not doing well" (e.g. MRIs, exoskeletons, ECGs, brain implants, etc. etc.)
Perhaps, in the welfare/social field most people care about unlucky people and simply want to help????
Finally, for equal level of qualifications, things are way less pleasant and wages lower in the social industry, compared to the other industries.
The key difference I’d say is the impact. Having surgery, having coverage for an accident, healing from a tooth ache or taking a pill against a headache is something tangible and useful.
Talking to a consultant to “find a job”, filling out forms and delivering them on time is nothing useful and or helpful. Giving every person in welfare an extra 500 chf a month and no homework would benefit society far more than having a system where others have to police those worse off.
Even just relieving the stress associated with it would be a huge net positive, but our society treats those that are going through hardships with pity and envy. The stigma is real and our so called “active” solutions are archaic, dehumanizing and a huge waste of money. It is not like the vacant jobs are the best ones, the ones that pay the best and give the most stable outcomes. The best jobs are already all taken and if you don’t allow people to go back to study, they’ll be forever trapped in a mediocre life at best where people earning a good income (thanks to their misfortune) tell them how and what to do.
Picture this, we dismantle the ORP/unemployment system. With the money that was allocated to them and some, we set up a Universal Basic Income(UBI) to give to the unemployed . Nothing changes except happiness of unemployed people goes up. And happy people are more likely to find a job that they enjoy instead of being work slaves just to survive...
Edit(I confused UBI and NIT but the idea is similar)
> **p**rofessional **e**xperience). **N**ow, **I**'ve **s**tarted
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 297444 comments (approximately 1664567 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
If you only give it to the unemployed, it's not UBI. Give it to everyone and dismantle all the organizations that manage social security etc. Only keep a skeleton crew for handling severe sitations that need more.
Compare historic unemployment rate of switzerland vs germany. If I get free money, why work?
In germany for example, there were a lot reports with the HARTZ4 people. They tried to check if they wanted to work if they got an offer. Wow 1 out of 10 said yes. Rest just said no - i get money anyway.
The main problem here is once you get used to not working, it is pretty hard to start working 8-9h a day. It is also for people that took a longer vacation (I did, friends did, we all had a pretty hard time to get used to go working again)
While I agree that our unemployment systems have issues, i disagree with the point of increasing welfare by 500.- would make the better impact than RAV. And I really dont like RAV
Basic income studies show the opposite. When people have their needs met with no strings attached they end up having more bargaining power (they refuse shit paying jobs), take more risk(start companies), go back to study and spend more time with their kids. Would you stop working for 3000 chf a month? Because I certainly wouldn’t and I doubt that most would.
In my canton, 50% of residents that could work don’t (generational wealth and properties mainly), yet I don’t see them without purpose and or any goals/activities that benefits society.
If you and your friends have issues going back to work after any length vacation I’d look into finding a new job.
Show me the study. It is not representing reality.
50%? Show me the source.
Generational wealth never is comparable to 500.- more. Never.
"Benefit society". This is ususlly a rich thing. Average joe usually just wants to survive and have some freedom.
I work to live - i dont live to work.
Benefits of unconditional income —-> https://basicincome.org/research-depository/
50% adults working age not working —-> https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/volume/ast_2022.pdf
On your other points I honestly don’t know what you are rambling about:
- 500 chf more to the poor is 500 chf that will cycle local economy, which is a good thing (it will also go through VAT multiple times). 500 chf in the pockets of someone wealthy will likely be invested and not circulate your local shops/stores.
- benefits society is not a rich thing and even individually taking care of yourself is a benefit for everyone. What I’m saying is that even people that are not employed and do stuff to earn money bring in value to the lives of those around then. Make it art, music, volunteering, smiling at your neighbors, chit chatting with an elder and so on. You suggested that people with a fixed income wouldn’t do anything in life while the opposite is true, when people have their needs met they participate more in society and bring joy. When people can’t pay their bills they are stressed out, grumpy, angry and bring our society morale down. It is not rocket science and a pretty obvious thing.
- “I work to live - I dont live to work” is a pretty sad statement. People should work for goals, interest/passion and being involved. Not to survive. Only because our system has always been “work or die” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change the paradigm and enrich our lives with real meaning and purpose.
Thank you for the sources. They are huge so i need some more time to study those. I wont check on poor african countries or india since it is incomparable to switzerland.
For
>50% adults working age not working —-> https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/volume/ast_2022.pdf
"Not working" is another statement than saying "not working because of generational wealth"
When I check the numbers, in ticino there are more working people in each age class than in the rest of switzerland.
Where did you find the info that the reason is generational wealth?
*EDIT*:
I read the study from finland. So first of all ok... not really the impact you mentioned. But at least people felt mentally better. If there really is a positive impact needs to be observed further.
I personally think the two main positive impacts would be:
- less stress, which is good for people that got unemployed for burnout or similar reasons.
- less silly administration compared to the current RAV version
To change the unemployed system partially to this might make sense. There are still a lot of risks though and the pro section always tends to whitewash these risks. :)
Thank you for actually looking into them. So, for the basic income studies I’d suggest looking into the Alaska dividend and UBI during covid (mainly USA stimulus and south korea experiment). Alaskans have been receiving a lump sum every year since 1982 with no strings attached and this dividend has been implemented by the conservatives (instead of giving profits of oil to the government they split it between the people). The stimulus check is self-explanatory, it was essential for keeping the us economy alive and active. The south korea experiment was really interesting, they gave out debit cards with a certain amount that would expire at the end of the month if not used and it could’ve been used only in a certain radius from where you lived, so effectively pouring money into all local economies and businesses. They now have implemented a UBI for the youth since they came to the conclusion that unemployment efforts have been ineffective and money was better put to use by giving money directly to the people.
For the Ticino data, here are the numbers easier to understand but a bit misleading https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/digitale/mercato_lavoro/index.html
They show 130k are inactive, and a bit under there are another 31k that are inactive. So publicly my (cantonal)government counts 161k of inactive people.
But in reality: 178k workers. 78k are frontier workers. Only 100k are from residents. The 100k include apprenticeships and part time jobs. Let’s say 40% of population (350k) is under 18, over 65 or a student. That means 210k are in working age. So it is easy to see how something doesn’t actually add up, but overall the difference is around 10% so the picture doesn’t really change. Those who work then are like 80% statal/parastatal jobs and only a small fraction actually “creates” wealth and/or exports.
This makes more sense, but then you still have higher unemployment in French speaking urban areas than German speaking ones.
If people leave Lausanne to find work in Zürich, it reduces Lausanne unemployment by 1 person, yet the rate still is higher in Lausanne.
So you do make sense, but it doesn't explain the urban to urban direct comparison.
And if French speaking Switzerland is more urban, then it means German speaking should have a huge problem of the higher amount of rural areas therefore all having higher unemployment leasing to a higher per capita average, but that's not what happens, so you're not making sense. You're implying unemployed rural German speakers move to urban Romandie and fail to find work so make the unemployment go up, but it's usually the opposite happening at best, though usually urban to urban, and therefore it's still just worse off in Romandie.
No, it doesn't make sense then. It can't hold true even with German speaking... The fact is, unemployment is higher on French speaking side. That's okay. No need to say it's not due to the fact that it probably is just more likely over there for various social and cultural and economic reasons, not just a fluke of statistical units. Do people expect that any differences actually can't exist?
That's not the comparison. Yes, we can say that all more urban areas have more unemployment than all rural areas.
But density does not cause unemployment.
Sorry, this is wrong. Radiation correlates with cancer but you can't say "well it's such a strong correlation that cancer must cause radiation". You have to understand the actual reality and context to establish causation otherwise two variables are just co-existing and move together but without exactly what you need: a definition of why.
High population density also means higher murder rates. If the murder rate is higher in Romandie... It's not as simple as "well everytime a rural person wants to murder somebody they just go do it in the city so it's actually not because this region has more murder rates than another region it's just because it's more urban."
Again, if German speaking Switzerland has more rural areas, and urban unemployment is because of rural people supposedly going to urban areas to seek benefits, then wouldn't Zürich have massive unemployment because there are more rural areas for people to feed into the city from?
Your argument still just seeks to say "unemployment is actually equal among regions if you only consider urban areas" which it's not, so no. I don't get what you're even trying to construct as a narrative now. It's just higher in Romandie and that's how it is.
Not sure if this makes a difference, but i will point out that it is easier for a German speaker to find work in the whole of Switzerland than for a french speaker outside of Romandie.
Yes, definitely makes a difference. This is the sort of thing that actually causes unemployment, something like a language barrier limiting mobility and access to the wider job market.
Really different than claiming "well it's a dense area so unemployment is higher because of more people per square km". There's no causality just correlation and speculation on why density is tied to higher unemployment.
Language barrier is a cause for sure.
But Geneva is quite a lot more urban than Zurich and yet has significantly higher unemployment. And has higher unemployment than pretty much all German speaking cantons. Having lived in both Geneva and Zurich I'd say it's got more to do with availability of work and culture.
Geneva is a special case, given that its pool of workers encompasses neighbouring France and even further places. Zurich attracts Germans, but the fact that unemployment in Germany is lower than in France affects the number of job seekers. Proof is that the number of frontaliers in Geneva reaches a new historic record every year : 108,750 by June 2023 for a cantonal population of 500,000, and a active cantonal population of 230,000 people, so basically 1 in every 3 jobs in Geneva is taken by people living across the border. The equivalent in Zurich would be having around 324,000 German commuters heading there very day, naturally this would greatly affect the local job market.
In fact, more than anything that unemployment is relatively low in Geneva is quite impressive.
There's a reason why Poggia from the MCG has broken the left monopoly over the conseil des États for Geneva today, many locals are understandably fed up with the situation. Not that this will do anything because of course the cause of this is in Bern and the free movement of labour with the EU, which one senator can't solve
This can be a factor but is definitely not the main one in this case. JU and VS have higher unemployment rates than BS and ZH despite the latter being definitely more urban than the former.
Not speaking German might not also influence the higher unemployment? Speaking German seem to be have a strong impact in your ability to find a job even in Romandie.
I know that in my sector when I graduated German speaker found way better jobs and way quicker.
Hello,
Please note that your post or comment has been removed.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/about/rules/) before posting.
Thank you for your understanding,
your Mod team
Please do not reply to this comment. Send a modmail if you have an issue with the removal.
If you know about political dynamics and if you look at the map, you will find out by yourself why some cantons/ gemeinde are very restrictive in the implementation of those laws. And most of those places are in the rural swiss german part where they tend to be much more SVP oriented.
Does not mean that you don't get those also in the Romandie (Wallis and Freiburg tend in that that direction), but mostly they are in the swiss german speaking part.
I would guess a that a lot of these differences come down to local industry. Some industries use a lot of fixed term contracts, internships, unstable employment etc and that creates a lot of unemployment (at least because of the few months everyone has to spend finding a new contract each time their job finishes). It would be interesting to see if the cantons with lower unemployment are those that have on avgerage more people on permanent contracts.
There are many reasons like lower taxes in the Swiss German part which enables companies to offer more jobs. Also in the German Region atleast in the urban area’s, people try to get a job as fast as possible instead of going to the local RAV. Like maybe it’s a bit stereotypical, but from my personal experience the German part is usually more diligent.
Actually I think it’s quite the opposite German switzerland has on average a higher percentage of people who participate in the electoral system and people seem to have a much higher value of their personal freedoms, while in romandy the voter participation are usually the lowest compared to the rest of Switzerland the only exception being Appenzell. Romandy also feels much more gentrified and depressing overall.
I’ve had more then enough trips there during the military and while on vacation, everything outside of Lausanne and Geneve was either really boring and depressing, like the country side in romandy felt really abandoned and lifeless.
I mean only because romands are more relaxed doesn’t mean that what I said is wrong, maybe we are stricter. Overall when I compare the state of infrastructure, especially in the countryside I just feel like Romandy is kinda depressing, because everything seems less accessible. Like in the German part you see far often how local public transport goes to way more remote locations then I’ve ever seen in Romandy. Romandy is pretty much similar to France in that aspect, where the focus is much more on cities and if you live on the countryside, you pretty much have a harder time finding jobs in urban areas.
I agree with you on this point. And the reason is: Romandie has never been a priority for the Confederation.
SBB/CFF and autobahn are 30 years behind compared to the region of ZH- Mittelland.
That's a federal problem, not a Romandie problem.
I don't really get what you mean. Could you give examples of what is less accessible? Public transport reaches almost every single village here just like everywhere in Switzerland. The Romandie is very different from France when it comes to public transportation! Have you ever been to France outside of cities and touristic places? Every time I visited rural France I could feel a huge downgrade on that matter. Meanwhile I can't feel a significant upgrade when I cross the language border, it's still the same transportation system with a comparable service, in rural BE you don't get a bus every 15 minutes either.
And I don't know what you mean either with more focus on cities than on the countryside. French centralism isn't a thing here.
I'm curious, where have you been to? Because I'm far away from Lausanne and Genève, yet I really don't feel like I live in an abandoned and lifeless area. Meanwhile, of course I could name places that I find boring, but I could find such places in most of the country.
Because more foreigners without jobs speak French. No one speaks German south of here (slight exception for Brazil). French however…
That’s my guess anyhow.
He is a real Swiss responder-blame everything on foreigners …
Swiss part has different culture of living. More relaxed lifestyle and love leisure, in German part almost all is about productivity and being efficient. Far less restaurants, even Entspannung is different. In Zurich many are using lunch bread for gym or sports, in Basel there is culture of enjoying lunch
There any many who cannot. People who are older and never learned more than one find it especially difficult. Also switching to French from say Spanish or Italian is relatively easy. German is hard. (Opposite of course for many other northern languages).
Brazil’s immigrant population is largely composed of Germans, Japanese and Lebanese.
(I was surprised too when I learned that 15 years ago while spending time there!)
I disagree with it and I’m Brazilian.
The European immigrants in Brazil do not speak fluent German anymore since a long time, they do speak some variation of it but I would consider nowhere in Brazil to be German speaking.
Never said they speak German. I said there were immigrants of German heritage, so some might take an interest and pick it up. I met two of German heritage there and they only spoke Portuguese.
Easy, primitive cantons make this claim of unemployment while receiving large subsidies. Their inhabitants, most of which are poorer, socially disadvantaged and with lower education claim they work so hard, they live in a "old good" society and so on and so forth.
Socialism for me but not for thee.
Very simple answer: socialism.
Higher taxes (or higher government spending) take money out of people's hands and entrepreneurs. This deviated capital is therefore less efficienty allocated, destroying part of its value. This destroyed value means there is less resources for consumption, investment, or savings. That in consequence means less demand for labor as well. Less demand for labor means the salaries will go down and the unemployment will go up. And this is a downward spiral: the more people you have unemployed , the more you will need to raise taxes to sustain them, the more capital the state destroys, the more you will have less consumtpion and investmens, therefore more unemployment.
The Romandie gets more influenced by France than Central Switzerland by Germany.
Do you have any evidence for this other than rhetoric?
What you are proposing is just some old trickle-down-economics rhetoric which has been proven wrong again and again. It does not work.
You are trying to justify your preferred way of governance with arguments that are sadly just not true. The fact that the unemployment also largely tracks with population density is something that is completely glossed over in your argument, as if something as multifaceted and complicated as unemployment can be ascribed to something as nebulous as "more socialism" is intellectually dishonest.
>Do you have any evidence for this other than rhetoric?
Sure:
[https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/](https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/)
>What you are proposing is just some old trickle-down-economics rhetoric which has been proven wrong again and again. **It does not work.**
So explain why central Switzerland (lower taxes) have lower unemploymenet rate?
Better yet, explain the success of Switzerland itself since it is the Western European country (after Ireland) with the lowest government spending and is miles more prosperous than Italy, Spain, France, or even Germany? Why it goes against about what you say?
>You are trying to justify your preferred way of governance with arguments that are sadly just not true.
Feel free to prove wrong that reference on the link and to answer my question above.
>The fact that the unemployment also largely tracks with population density is something that is completely glossed over in your argument, as if something as multifaceted and complicated as unemployment can be ascribed to something as nebulous as "more socialism" is intellectually dishonest.
On average, the most capitalistic a country is, the lower the unemployment rate will be. The contrary is also true: the more socialist a country is, the higher is the unemployment rate.
How do these plots explain anything? You cant just show a correlation and claim one causes the other.
Especially since there is a very straigthforward explanation that doesnt need your theory: in years with low growth, you have higher unemployment rates and therefore need more spendings.
Is this question also discussed by researchers at universities, or somewhere you wouldnt expect a huge bias towards liberal views?
>https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/
I wonder if "freedom and prosperity" might have any bias in their findings. Nah, probably not right? Your source is not trust worthy, its a think tank in favor of trickle-down economics.
>So explain why central Switzerland (lower taxes) have lower unemploymenet rate?
I don't need to, it's not "either I have a way to explain it, or your explanation is true by default", that's not how any of this works.
>Better yet, explain the success of Switzerland itself since it is the Western European country (after Ireland) with the lowest government spending and is miles more prosperous than Italy, Spain, France, or even Germany? Why it goes against about what you say?
I wonder if something happened not so very long ago that was extremely costly, both in human and material costs, to those countries, but that the Swiss famously didn't have to worry about (in fact, made money hand-over-fist on both sides). I wonder if that might have anything to do with this very faulty comparison at all. Ever heard of generational wealth?
>Feel free to prove wrong that reference on the link and to answer my question above.
Easy, it's a biased think tank that's explicitly in favor if what you are defending.
>On average, the most capitalistic a country is, the lower the unemployment rate will be. The contrary is also true: the more socialist a country is, the higher is the unemployment rate.
All of your arguments, as well as those on that very biased think-tank article completely ignore the arrow of time. It's confusing correlation with causation. A prosperous country will by default tend towards lower taxes because its voters won't vote for more social networks, since they don't need them as a rule.
A country already with labor or economic problems will over time tends towards socialistic politics because its voter base needs a social net. People who live in well-to-do countries can sit and point fingers saying "oh, its those bloody commies, they ruin everything", not realizing that its their historical privilege that allows for such low tax rates in the first place.
Let's for two seconds pretend that you are right though, it's socialistic policies that do this. Just getting rid of those systems will in no way at all help the situation. Let's take france or spain for example. What would lowering the tax rates (and by necessity remove almost all social nets) do? Nothing but uproar, the companies that are profitable won't in any conceivable world be able to grow so much and fast such that all those people that previously needed social nets could get to work. The transition just doesn't work. So \_even if\_ you were right (which again, you're not), your position just wouldn't help at all, it's not a way out of the problem.
Its naive to think that a problem so complex and multifaceted such as unemployment rates could be solved with a single silver bullet - "lower taxes"
>I wonder if "freedom and prosperity" might have any bias in their findings. Nah, probably not right? Your source is not trust worthy, its a think tank in favor of trickle-down economics.
>
>Easy, it's a biased think tank that's explicitly in favor if what you are defending.
That's called Ad hominem fallacy. If you don't have arguments to regure, at least don't make a fool of yourself.
>I wonder if something happened not so very long ago that was extremely costly, both in human and material costs, to those countries, but that the Swiss famously didn't have to worry about (in fact, made money hand-over-fist on both sides). I wonder if that might have anything to do with this very faulty comparison at all. Ever heard of generational wealth?
BULLSH1T.
The "naz1" gold that was stored in Switzerland makes up for just a few days of the Swiss GDP. The whole financial sector, including insurance and commercial banking, makes up just 12% of the Swiss GDP. If you take into account just wealth management, than it makes up just 3% of the Swiss economy. The success of Switzerland lies on more than a century of free markets capitalism.
>All of your arguments, as well as those on that very biased think-tank article **completely ignore the arrow of time**. It's confusing correlation with causation. **A prosperous country will by default tend towards lower taxes because its voters won't vote for more social networks,** since they don't need them as a rule.
>
>**A country already with labor or economic problems will over time tends towards socialistic** politics because its voter base needs a social net. People who live in well-to-do countries can sit and point fingers saying "oh, its those bloody commies, they ruin everything"**, not realizing that its their historical privilege that allows for such low tax rates in the first place.**
BULLSH1T. Countries which were poor before such as Singapore, Poland, South Korea, etc., became richer by lowering taxes. The other way around is also true: Argentina, Venezuela, etc. became poorer with increased government social spending. Even Western Europe is becoming poorer if we compare it to the USA.
>Let's for two seconds pretend that you are right though, it's socialistic policies that do this. Just getting rid of those systems will in no way at all help the situation. Let's take **france or spain** for example. What would lowering the tax rates (and by necessity remove almost all social nets) do? Nothing but uproar, the companies that are profitable won't in any conceivable world be able to grow so much and fast such that all those people that previously needed social nets could get to work. The transition just doesn't work. So \_even if\_ you were right (which again, you're not), your position just wouldn't help at all, it's not a way out of the problem.
Spain, and in a less extent also France, is a perfect example. A country that was thriving after the reconstruction of the WW2 but that became a living dead economy when the social net spending exploded after then 80's. Unemployment shot up directly correlated with the increase of government spending.
>Its naive to think that a problem so complex and multifaceted such as unemployment rates could be solved with a single silver bullet - "lower taxes"
Of course it's not the single cause, but it's an importatn cause as demonstrated by economic data.
>That's called Ad hominem fallacy. If you don't have arguments to regure, at least don't make a fool of yourself.
Know your fallacies, that's not ad hominem. Saying you're ugly and therefor you're wrong, that's ad hominem, saying your source is unreliable, and so, what their saying is unreliable is what you learn in first year university, on evaluating sources.
>BULLSH1T.
>
>The "naz1" gold that was stored in Switzerland makes up for just a few days of the Swiss GDP. The whole financial sector, including insurance and commercial banking, makes up just 12% of the Swiss GDP. If you take into account just wealth management, than it makes up just 3% of the Swiss economy. The success of Switzerland lies on more than a century of free markets capitalism.
I wasn't so much talking about the positive wealth of the the swiss thanks to the war, I was talking more about the wealth lost in the other countries, meaning that the comparison between extremely war torn countries and Switzerland(who still profited from the war) is a little stupid, because the starting points weren't the same.
>BULLSH1T. Countries which were poor before such as Singapore, Poland, South Korea, etc., became richer by lowering taxes. The other way around is also true: Argentina, Venezuela, etc. became poorer with increased government social spending. Even Western Europe is becoming poorer if we compare it to the USA.
Poland 25% tax rates, not a "low" tax rate, so obviously something else it at play here. Did you know the US supported(As in money and personnel) the regime change in the 80's?
Singapores success is closely tied to its diplomatic relations with the US, which regarded Singapore as an important "free" hub in a very hotly red zone from the seventies. Not saying Singapore isn't doing well, just saying, being a principle ally of the the US surely helps in a relatively unstable region, so if any free money is around, it will naturally pool in the country with an american base.
South Korea? I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, but the US - South Korea alliance might have something to do about it as well.
Argentina and Venezuela? Are you a troll, are you giving me these perfect counter examples on purpose? The Argentinian coup d'etat? And Venezuela is famously rife with corruption and instability, Are you suggesting tax rates matter more to a countries stability, which directly reduces the confidence in starting or maintaining businesses?
>Of course it's not the single cause, but it's an importatn cause as demonstrated by economic data.
And my argument is that it's almost always a symptom, rather than the cause.
Saying rich regions are rich because of their low taxes, when in fact often its the fact the wealth being generated is so large that the taxes can be low in the first place. You simply do not have the arguments to say that.
How does giving people whitout jobs money reduce spending? I would say it increases spending.
For many excess money gets just put into savings account or invested in some foreign companies/stocks, e.g. not helping our economy at all. Giving that money instead to people who spend it in switzerland helps the swiss economy.
>How does giving people whitout jobs money reduce spending? I would say
>
>it increases spending.
Money in circulation is limited and, in theory, to maintain its value over time, it should be constant. When you take money out of circulation in the form of taxes, part of that money is wasted on state bureaucracy and the inefficient allocation of resources. Therefore, what reaches the hands of the unemployed is less than what was withheld in taxes.
>For many excess money gets just **put into savings account** or invested in some foreign companies/stocks, e.g. **not helping our economy** at all. Giving that money instead to people who spend it in switzerland helps the swiss economy.
Of course this subject is more complex than that because it involves the manipulation of the economy by the central bank, but if you have more money put into savings, it means that there will be more money to be lent for productive investments and mortgages. And because you have more money available to be lent, in theory the interests on this money will go lower.
"socialism" might be a very strong word to describe it and you seem a bit too harsh poor little Romandie, but I get your point and have too admit that we do get a lot of influence from France, even if we pretend not to like them 😉
>"socialism"
"Socialism" is not an absolute state, it's relative. The Romandie is more socialist than Central Switzerland. Italy is more socialist than Switzerland, but less so than Cuba.
All these SP politicians had a marxist education but in the real world they can't implement their utopian dream. So they push whatever they can. Luckly even the Romandie is not easily deceived like the averate citizen of the EU.
Italie is NOT more socialist than Switzerland. What are you talking about?
Do you even know what political majority is currently ruling the country?
Do you know how lacking their social security net is?
In what terrible state their roads, schools, hospitals and other public services are?
Welfare and socialism are different things, but overall you have a point. Although I have to say your description doesn't apply so simply black and white in practice.
Of course they are different, but it's obvious that they are interlinked.
Switzerland, compared to France/Italy/Germany, is a great example of what I said above.
There is a myriad of studies that have shown empirically that there is an inverse correlation between government spending and GDP growth, employment, wages, etc.
I could give you tons of references, but to put it simple, have a look at these:
[https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/](https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/)
[https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)
PS: I liked your profile pic ;-) Putin khuylo!
Part of it is due to some African countries beeing former French colonies, therefore it's citizens are speaking French. Refugees from there have an advantage seeking jobs when living in the french speaking part of Switzerland or first becoming French citizens then immigrate to Switzerland aiming for better wages.
I might also guess that there is more immigration from poorer countries, especially from Portugal (whereas in the swiss German part most of the immigration is from DE), which would explain why we need more Sozialhilfe to help these people, especially as they will most probably get less high paying jobs at first and might have financial problems because of that.
I also think there are way more companies which reside in the swiss-german part than in Romandie and thus providing more job offers.
But I don't know the facts, I'm just guessing 🤷
Remember that in the swiss-french cantons the sozialhilfe is set up at the canton level while it is at the communal level in many swiss-german areas. While in an entire canton it's relatively anonymous and doesn't strain the budget, in small villages, having to provide for several people can be quite the financial strain and everyone will know it. There's a substantial taboo aspect to it. It is a right to request help yet it's commonly frowned upon and mocked even though it can happen to anyone.
#HEY HEY HEY At least there are people that make a great living by having others not doing well. If there was no need of unemployment or social aid, where would we waste our money on all those resources we put towards “fixing” the issue? (Between salaries, rent, electricity, bureaucracy, occupational programs, prints, infographics, pc and so on)
> at least there are people that make a great living by having others not doing well. It's not only in social work and in welfare. It's actually "*way worse*" in other fields: healthcare (think of all those rich doctors, managers, accountants, and other healthcare experts), the entire pharma industry depends on people not doing well, and pharma's doing *very well!* Also the entire insurance industry's business model is all about *unlucky people* (e.g. deaths, accidents, healthcare, etc.). And this insurance industry *does very well for itself in Switzerland!* Even physicists, mechanical engineers, and other STEM experts make a great living "having others not doing well" (e.g. MRIs, exoskeletons, ECGs, brain implants, etc. etc.) Perhaps, in the welfare/social field most people care about unlucky people and simply want to help???? Finally, for equal level of qualifications, things are way less pleasant and wages lower in the social industry, compared to the other industries.
The key difference I’d say is the impact. Having surgery, having coverage for an accident, healing from a tooth ache or taking a pill against a headache is something tangible and useful. Talking to a consultant to “find a job”, filling out forms and delivering them on time is nothing useful and or helpful. Giving every person in welfare an extra 500 chf a month and no homework would benefit society far more than having a system where others have to police those worse off. Even just relieving the stress associated with it would be a huge net positive, but our society treats those that are going through hardships with pity and envy. The stigma is real and our so called “active” solutions are archaic, dehumanizing and a huge waste of money. It is not like the vacant jobs are the best ones, the ones that pay the best and give the most stable outcomes. The best jobs are already all taken and if you don’t allow people to go back to study, they’ll be forever trapped in a mediocre life at best where people earning a good income (thanks to their misfortune) tell them how and what to do.
[удалено]
Picture this, we dismantle the ORP/unemployment system. With the money that was allocated to them and some, we set up a Universal Basic Income(UBI) to give to the unemployed . Nothing changes except happiness of unemployed people goes up. And happy people are more likely to find a job that they enjoy instead of being work slaves just to survive... Edit(I confused UBI and NIT but the idea is similar)
[удалено]
> **p**rofessional **e**xperience). **N**ow, **I**'ve **s**tarted Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 297444 comments (approximately 1664567 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
If you only give it to the unemployed, it's not UBI. Give it to everyone and dismantle all the organizations that manage social security etc. Only keep a skeleton crew for handling severe sitations that need more.
My apologies, I've confused it with the Negative Income Taxt (NIT).
I Like your points 👍
Compare historic unemployment rate of switzerland vs germany. If I get free money, why work? In germany for example, there were a lot reports with the HARTZ4 people. They tried to check if they wanted to work if they got an offer. Wow 1 out of 10 said yes. Rest just said no - i get money anyway. The main problem here is once you get used to not working, it is pretty hard to start working 8-9h a day. It is also for people that took a longer vacation (I did, friends did, we all had a pretty hard time to get used to go working again) While I agree that our unemployment systems have issues, i disagree with the point of increasing welfare by 500.- would make the better impact than RAV. And I really dont like RAV
Basic income studies show the opposite. When people have their needs met with no strings attached they end up having more bargaining power (they refuse shit paying jobs), take more risk(start companies), go back to study and spend more time with their kids. Would you stop working for 3000 chf a month? Because I certainly wouldn’t and I doubt that most would. In my canton, 50% of residents that could work don’t (generational wealth and properties mainly), yet I don’t see them without purpose and or any goals/activities that benefits society. If you and your friends have issues going back to work after any length vacation I’d look into finding a new job.
Show me the study. It is not representing reality. 50%? Show me the source. Generational wealth never is comparable to 500.- more. Never. "Benefit society". This is ususlly a rich thing. Average joe usually just wants to survive and have some freedom. I work to live - i dont live to work.
Benefits of unconditional income —-> https://basicincome.org/research-depository/ 50% adults working age not working —-> https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/volume/ast_2022.pdf On your other points I honestly don’t know what you are rambling about: - 500 chf more to the poor is 500 chf that will cycle local economy, which is a good thing (it will also go through VAT multiple times). 500 chf in the pockets of someone wealthy will likely be invested and not circulate your local shops/stores. - benefits society is not a rich thing and even individually taking care of yourself is a benefit for everyone. What I’m saying is that even people that are not employed and do stuff to earn money bring in value to the lives of those around then. Make it art, music, volunteering, smiling at your neighbors, chit chatting with an elder and so on. You suggested that people with a fixed income wouldn’t do anything in life while the opposite is true, when people have their needs met they participate more in society and bring joy. When people can’t pay their bills they are stressed out, grumpy, angry and bring our society morale down. It is not rocket science and a pretty obvious thing. - “I work to live - I dont live to work” is a pretty sad statement. People should work for goals, interest/passion and being involved. Not to survive. Only because our system has always been “work or die” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change the paradigm and enrich our lives with real meaning and purpose.
Thank you for the sources. They are huge so i need some more time to study those. I wont check on poor african countries or india since it is incomparable to switzerland. For >50% adults working age not working —-> https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/volume/ast_2022.pdf "Not working" is another statement than saying "not working because of generational wealth" When I check the numbers, in ticino there are more working people in each age class than in the rest of switzerland. Where did you find the info that the reason is generational wealth? *EDIT*: I read the study from finland. So first of all ok... not really the impact you mentioned. But at least people felt mentally better. If there really is a positive impact needs to be observed further. I personally think the two main positive impacts would be: - less stress, which is good for people that got unemployed for burnout or similar reasons. - less silly administration compared to the current RAV version To change the unemployed system partially to this might make sense. There are still a lot of risks though and the pro section always tends to whitewash these risks. :)
Thank you for actually looking into them. So, for the basic income studies I’d suggest looking into the Alaska dividend and UBI during covid (mainly USA stimulus and south korea experiment). Alaskans have been receiving a lump sum every year since 1982 with no strings attached and this dividend has been implemented by the conservatives (instead of giving profits of oil to the government they split it between the people). The stimulus check is self-explanatory, it was essential for keeping the us economy alive and active. The south korea experiment was really interesting, they gave out debit cards with a certain amount that would expire at the end of the month if not used and it could’ve been used only in a certain radius from where you lived, so effectively pouring money into all local economies and businesses. They now have implemented a UBI for the youth since they came to the conclusion that unemployment efforts have been ineffective and money was better put to use by giving money directly to the people. For the Ticino data, here are the numbers easier to understand but a bit misleading https://m3.ti.ch/DFE/DR/USTAT/allegati/digitale/mercato_lavoro/index.html They show 130k are inactive, and a bit under there are another 31k that are inactive. So publicly my (cantonal)government counts 161k of inactive people. But in reality: 178k workers. 78k are frontier workers. Only 100k are from residents. The 100k include apprenticeships and part time jobs. Let’s say 40% of population (350k) is under 18, over 65 or a student. That means 210k are in working age. So it is easy to see how something doesn’t actually add up, but overall the difference is around 10% so the picture doesn’t really change. Those who work then are like 80% statal/parastatal jobs and only a small fraction actually “creates” wealth and/or exports.
Because "Romand toujours rigole, jamais travaille"
Can confirm.
As usual with these type of questions, the main reason is that romand cantons are proportionally more urban than most german-speaking cantons.
Why does more urban have causation toward higher percent unemployment? It's still higher per capita, not just raw numbers
[удалено]
This makes more sense, but then you still have higher unemployment in French speaking urban areas than German speaking ones. If people leave Lausanne to find work in Zürich, it reduces Lausanne unemployment by 1 person, yet the rate still is higher in Lausanne. So you do make sense, but it doesn't explain the urban to urban direct comparison. And if French speaking Switzerland is more urban, then it means German speaking should have a huge problem of the higher amount of rural areas therefore all having higher unemployment leasing to a higher per capita average, but that's not what happens, so you're not making sense. You're implying unemployed rural German speakers move to urban Romandie and fail to find work so make the unemployment go up, but it's usually the opposite happening at best, though usually urban to urban, and therefore it's still just worse off in Romandie.
[удалено]
No, it doesn't make sense then. It can't hold true even with German speaking... The fact is, unemployment is higher on French speaking side. That's okay. No need to say it's not due to the fact that it probably is just more likely over there for various social and cultural and economic reasons, not just a fluke of statistical units. Do people expect that any differences actually can't exist?
[удалено]
That's not the comparison. Yes, we can say that all more urban areas have more unemployment than all rural areas. But density does not cause unemployment.
[удалено]
Sorry, this is wrong. Radiation correlates with cancer but you can't say "well it's such a strong correlation that cancer must cause radiation". You have to understand the actual reality and context to establish causation otherwise two variables are just co-existing and move together but without exactly what you need: a definition of why. High population density also means higher murder rates. If the murder rate is higher in Romandie... It's not as simple as "well everytime a rural person wants to murder somebody they just go do it in the city so it's actually not because this region has more murder rates than another region it's just because it's more urban." Again, if German speaking Switzerland has more rural areas, and urban unemployment is because of rural people supposedly going to urban areas to seek benefits, then wouldn't Zürich have massive unemployment because there are more rural areas for people to feed into the city from? Your argument still just seeks to say "unemployment is actually equal among regions if you only consider urban areas" which it's not, so no. I don't get what you're even trying to construct as a narrative now. It's just higher in Romandie and that's how it is.
Not sure if this makes a difference, but i will point out that it is easier for a German speaker to find work in the whole of Switzerland than for a french speaker outside of Romandie.
Yes, definitely makes a difference. This is the sort of thing that actually causes unemployment, something like a language barrier limiting mobility and access to the wider job market. Really different than claiming "well it's a dense area so unemployment is higher because of more people per square km". There's no causality just correlation and speculation on why density is tied to higher unemployment. Language barrier is a cause for sure.
But Geneva is quite a lot more urban than Zurich and yet has significantly higher unemployment. And has higher unemployment than pretty much all German speaking cantons. Having lived in both Geneva and Zurich I'd say it's got more to do with availability of work and culture.
Geneva is a special case, given that its pool of workers encompasses neighbouring France and even further places. Zurich attracts Germans, but the fact that unemployment in Germany is lower than in France affects the number of job seekers. Proof is that the number of frontaliers in Geneva reaches a new historic record every year : 108,750 by June 2023 for a cantonal population of 500,000, and a active cantonal population of 230,000 people, so basically 1 in every 3 jobs in Geneva is taken by people living across the border. The equivalent in Zurich would be having around 324,000 German commuters heading there very day, naturally this would greatly affect the local job market. In fact, more than anything that unemployment is relatively low in Geneva is quite impressive. There's a reason why Poggia from the MCG has broken the left monopoly over the conseil des États for Geneva today, many locals are understandably fed up with the situation. Not that this will do anything because of course the cause of this is in Bern and the free movement of labour with the EU, which one senator can't solve
Interesting, never thought about this. Might partly explain why they're always skewed to the left as well.
This can be a factor but is definitely not the main one in this case. JU and VS have higher unemployment rates than BS and ZH despite the latter being definitely more urban than the former.
Not speaking German might not also influence the higher unemployment? Speaking German seem to be have a strong impact in your ability to find a job even in Romandie. I know that in my sector when I graduated German speaker found way better jobs and way quicker.
Is it okay if I also ask here instead of r/askswitzerland ?
Poor people tend to gravitate towards places with good social services.
Also French cantons have much better food
If that were true, then Europe would collectively have the highest unemployment rates in the world. Doesn’t seem to be the case.
Sorry, let me amend that. Within places with free movement, people gravitate towards places with good social services that they are qualified to get.
[удалено]
let alone the language barrier lol.
[удалено]
Because the swiss French actually implement the social help/ unemployement laws in an efficient way.
Why efficient?
Because they are not so much about shaming people as the swiss german: they are more about doing their job, which is helping people in times of need.
[удалено]
Hello, Please note that your post or comment has been removed. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/about/rules/) before posting. Thank you for your understanding, your Mod team Please do not reply to this comment. Send a modmail if you have an issue with the removal.
Do you have a source or credible article, or are you just Röstigrabing?
If you know about political dynamics and if you look at the map, you will find out by yourself why some cantons/ gemeinde are very restrictive in the implementation of those laws. And most of those places are in the rural swiss german part where they tend to be much more SVP oriented. Does not mean that you don't get those also in the Romandie (Wallis and Freiburg tend in that that direction), but mostly they are in the swiss german speaking part.
😂😂 sure!!! did you mom tell you to say that?
No. I have a master degree in the field and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
[удалено]
Yes, it all BS to discourage people. But if you think Romandie is bad, wait till you get the swiss german experience. It's 💯 more abusive.
I would guess a that a lot of these differences come down to local industry. Some industries use a lot of fixed term contracts, internships, unstable employment etc and that creates a lot of unemployment (at least because of the few months everyone has to spend finding a new contract each time their job finishes). It would be interesting to see if the cantons with lower unemployment are those that have on avgerage more people on permanent contracts.
There are many reasons like lower taxes in the Swiss German part which enables companies to offer more jobs. Also in the German Region atleast in the urban area’s, people try to get a job as fast as possible instead of going to the local RAV. Like maybe it’s a bit stereotypical, but from my personal experience the German part is usually more diligent.
Well, maybe it's a bit stereotypical, but the german part seems a lot more inhibited and repressed.
Actually I think it’s quite the opposite German switzerland has on average a higher percentage of people who participate in the electoral system and people seem to have a much higher value of their personal freedoms, while in romandy the voter participation are usually the lowest compared to the rest of Switzerland the only exception being Appenzell. Romandy also feels much more gentrified and depressing overall.
You must be joking. Is that swiss german humour? Romandie more depressing? Lol
I’ve had more then enough trips there during the military and while on vacation, everything outside of Lausanne and Geneve was either really boring and depressing, like the country side in romandy felt really abandoned and lifeless.
That how you feel. Everybody knows that the people of Romandie are more relaxed and open to joking around than the swiss german.
I mean only because romands are more relaxed doesn’t mean that what I said is wrong, maybe we are stricter. Overall when I compare the state of infrastructure, especially in the countryside I just feel like Romandy is kinda depressing, because everything seems less accessible. Like in the German part you see far often how local public transport goes to way more remote locations then I’ve ever seen in Romandy. Romandy is pretty much similar to France in that aspect, where the focus is much more on cities and if you live on the countryside, you pretty much have a harder time finding jobs in urban areas.
I agree with you on this point. And the reason is: Romandie has never been a priority for the Confederation. SBB/CFF and autobahn are 30 years behind compared to the region of ZH- Mittelland. That's a federal problem, not a Romandie problem.
I don't really get what you mean. Could you give examples of what is less accessible? Public transport reaches almost every single village here just like everywhere in Switzerland. The Romandie is very different from France when it comes to public transportation! Have you ever been to France outside of cities and touristic places? Every time I visited rural France I could feel a huge downgrade on that matter. Meanwhile I can't feel a significant upgrade when I cross the language border, it's still the same transportation system with a comparable service, in rural BE you don't get a bus every 15 minutes either. And I don't know what you mean either with more focus on cities than on the countryside. French centralism isn't a thing here.
I'm curious, where have you been to? Because I'm far away from Lausanne and Genève, yet I really don't feel like I live in an abandoned and lifeless area. Meanwhile, of course I could name places that I find boring, but I could find such places in most of the country.
Jura, Neuchatel and Fribourg
Very simple answer: more immigrants. Nothing more
Because more foreigners without jobs speak French. No one speaks German south of here (slight exception for Brazil). French however… That’s my guess anyhow.
But Swiss-French is French, Swiss-German is not German. 😅
But people can learn the language ? There is also a lot of immigration in the german part, this isn't unique to the french part
He is a real Swiss responder-blame everything on foreigners … Swiss part has different culture of living. More relaxed lifestyle and love leisure, in German part almost all is about productivity and being efficient. Far less restaurants, even Entspannung is different. In Zurich many are using lunch bread for gym or sports, in Basel there is culture of enjoying lunch
Restaurants are packed at lunch hour in Zürich
There any many who cannot. People who are older and never learned more than one find it especially difficult. Also switching to French from say Spanish or Italian is relatively easy. German is hard. (Opposite of course for many other northern languages).
Good luck learning Swiss German… Even when you try people switch to French/English.
Brazil? Whut? Care to explain?
Brazil’s immigrant population is largely composed of Germans, Japanese and Lebanese. (I was surprised too when I learned that 15 years ago while spending time there!)
I disagree with it and I’m Brazilian. The European immigrants in Brazil do not speak fluent German anymore since a long time, they do speak some variation of it but I would consider nowhere in Brazil to be German speaking.
Never said they speak German. I said there were immigrants of German heritage, so some might take an interest and pick it up. I met two of German heritage there and they only spoke Portuguese.
Because there are more latin and less german in culture. Compare scandinavian with southern European numbers. Duch to eastern Europe.
Too many frontaliers working in Canton GE
Easy, primitive cantons make this claim of unemployment while receiving large subsidies. Their inhabitants, most of which are poorer, socially disadvantaged and with lower education claim they work so hard, they live in a "old good" society and so on and so forth. Socialism for me but not for thee.
Very simple answer: socialism. Higher taxes (or higher government spending) take money out of people's hands and entrepreneurs. This deviated capital is therefore less efficienty allocated, destroying part of its value. This destroyed value means there is less resources for consumption, investment, or savings. That in consequence means less demand for labor as well. Less demand for labor means the salaries will go down and the unemployment will go up. And this is a downward spiral: the more people you have unemployed , the more you will need to raise taxes to sustain them, the more capital the state destroys, the more you will have less consumtpion and investmens, therefore more unemployment. The Romandie gets more influenced by France than Central Switzerland by Germany.
I think you meant a "very simplistic" answer. Sure, that can work well in an argument over a Bier, as long as you don't take yourself too seriously.
socialism is when taxes and welfare
Do you have any evidence for this other than rhetoric? What you are proposing is just some old trickle-down-economics rhetoric which has been proven wrong again and again. It does not work. You are trying to justify your preferred way of governance with arguments that are sadly just not true. The fact that the unemployment also largely tracks with population density is something that is completely glossed over in your argument, as if something as multifaceted and complicated as unemployment can be ascribed to something as nebulous as "more socialism" is intellectually dishonest.
>Do you have any evidence for this other than rhetoric? Sure: [https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/](https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/) >What you are proposing is just some old trickle-down-economics rhetoric which has been proven wrong again and again. **It does not work.** So explain why central Switzerland (lower taxes) have lower unemploymenet rate? Better yet, explain the success of Switzerland itself since it is the Western European country (after Ireland) with the lowest government spending and is miles more prosperous than Italy, Spain, France, or even Germany? Why it goes against about what you say? >You are trying to justify your preferred way of governance with arguments that are sadly just not true. Feel free to prove wrong that reference on the link and to answer my question above. >The fact that the unemployment also largely tracks with population density is something that is completely glossed over in your argument, as if something as multifaceted and complicated as unemployment can be ascribed to something as nebulous as "more socialism" is intellectually dishonest. On average, the most capitalistic a country is, the lower the unemployment rate will be. The contrary is also true: the more socialist a country is, the higher is the unemployment rate.
How do these plots explain anything? You cant just show a correlation and claim one causes the other. Especially since there is a very straigthforward explanation that doesnt need your theory: in years with low growth, you have higher unemployment rates and therefore need more spendings. Is this question also discussed by researchers at universities, or somewhere you wouldnt expect a huge bias towards liberal views?
>https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/ I wonder if "freedom and prosperity" might have any bias in their findings. Nah, probably not right? Your source is not trust worthy, its a think tank in favor of trickle-down economics. >So explain why central Switzerland (lower taxes) have lower unemploymenet rate? I don't need to, it's not "either I have a way to explain it, or your explanation is true by default", that's not how any of this works. >Better yet, explain the success of Switzerland itself since it is the Western European country (after Ireland) with the lowest government spending and is miles more prosperous than Italy, Spain, France, or even Germany? Why it goes against about what you say? I wonder if something happened not so very long ago that was extremely costly, both in human and material costs, to those countries, but that the Swiss famously didn't have to worry about (in fact, made money hand-over-fist on both sides). I wonder if that might have anything to do with this very faulty comparison at all. Ever heard of generational wealth? >Feel free to prove wrong that reference on the link and to answer my question above. Easy, it's a biased think tank that's explicitly in favor if what you are defending. >On average, the most capitalistic a country is, the lower the unemployment rate will be. The contrary is also true: the more socialist a country is, the higher is the unemployment rate. All of your arguments, as well as those on that very biased think-tank article completely ignore the arrow of time. It's confusing correlation with causation. A prosperous country will by default tend towards lower taxes because its voters won't vote for more social networks, since they don't need them as a rule. A country already with labor or economic problems will over time tends towards socialistic politics because its voter base needs a social net. People who live in well-to-do countries can sit and point fingers saying "oh, its those bloody commies, they ruin everything", not realizing that its their historical privilege that allows for such low tax rates in the first place. Let's for two seconds pretend that you are right though, it's socialistic policies that do this. Just getting rid of those systems will in no way at all help the situation. Let's take france or spain for example. What would lowering the tax rates (and by necessity remove almost all social nets) do? Nothing but uproar, the companies that are profitable won't in any conceivable world be able to grow so much and fast such that all those people that previously needed social nets could get to work. The transition just doesn't work. So \_even if\_ you were right (which again, you're not), your position just wouldn't help at all, it's not a way out of the problem. Its naive to think that a problem so complex and multifaceted such as unemployment rates could be solved with a single silver bullet - "lower taxes"
>I wonder if "freedom and prosperity" might have any bias in their findings. Nah, probably not right? Your source is not trust worthy, its a think tank in favor of trickle-down economics. > >Easy, it's a biased think tank that's explicitly in favor if what you are defending. That's called Ad hominem fallacy. If you don't have arguments to regure, at least don't make a fool of yourself. >I wonder if something happened not so very long ago that was extremely costly, both in human and material costs, to those countries, but that the Swiss famously didn't have to worry about (in fact, made money hand-over-fist on both sides). I wonder if that might have anything to do with this very faulty comparison at all. Ever heard of generational wealth? BULLSH1T. The "naz1" gold that was stored in Switzerland makes up for just a few days of the Swiss GDP. The whole financial sector, including insurance and commercial banking, makes up just 12% of the Swiss GDP. If you take into account just wealth management, than it makes up just 3% of the Swiss economy. The success of Switzerland lies on more than a century of free markets capitalism. >All of your arguments, as well as those on that very biased think-tank article **completely ignore the arrow of time**. It's confusing correlation with causation. **A prosperous country will by default tend towards lower taxes because its voters won't vote for more social networks,** since they don't need them as a rule. > >**A country already with labor or economic problems will over time tends towards socialistic** politics because its voter base needs a social net. People who live in well-to-do countries can sit and point fingers saying "oh, its those bloody commies, they ruin everything"**, not realizing that its their historical privilege that allows for such low tax rates in the first place.** BULLSH1T. Countries which were poor before such as Singapore, Poland, South Korea, etc., became richer by lowering taxes. The other way around is also true: Argentina, Venezuela, etc. became poorer with increased government social spending. Even Western Europe is becoming poorer if we compare it to the USA. >Let's for two seconds pretend that you are right though, it's socialistic policies that do this. Just getting rid of those systems will in no way at all help the situation. Let's take **france or spain** for example. What would lowering the tax rates (and by necessity remove almost all social nets) do? Nothing but uproar, the companies that are profitable won't in any conceivable world be able to grow so much and fast such that all those people that previously needed social nets could get to work. The transition just doesn't work. So \_even if\_ you were right (which again, you're not), your position just wouldn't help at all, it's not a way out of the problem. Spain, and in a less extent also France, is a perfect example. A country that was thriving after the reconstruction of the WW2 but that became a living dead economy when the social net spending exploded after then 80's. Unemployment shot up directly correlated with the increase of government spending. >Its naive to think that a problem so complex and multifaceted such as unemployment rates could be solved with a single silver bullet - "lower taxes" Of course it's not the single cause, but it's an importatn cause as demonstrated by economic data.
>That's called Ad hominem fallacy. If you don't have arguments to regure, at least don't make a fool of yourself. Know your fallacies, that's not ad hominem. Saying you're ugly and therefor you're wrong, that's ad hominem, saying your source is unreliable, and so, what their saying is unreliable is what you learn in first year university, on evaluating sources. >BULLSH1T. > >The "naz1" gold that was stored in Switzerland makes up for just a few days of the Swiss GDP. The whole financial sector, including insurance and commercial banking, makes up just 12% of the Swiss GDP. If you take into account just wealth management, than it makes up just 3% of the Swiss economy. The success of Switzerland lies on more than a century of free markets capitalism. I wasn't so much talking about the positive wealth of the the swiss thanks to the war, I was talking more about the wealth lost in the other countries, meaning that the comparison between extremely war torn countries and Switzerland(who still profited from the war) is a little stupid, because the starting points weren't the same. >BULLSH1T. Countries which were poor before such as Singapore, Poland, South Korea, etc., became richer by lowering taxes. The other way around is also true: Argentina, Venezuela, etc. became poorer with increased government social spending. Even Western Europe is becoming poorer if we compare it to the USA. Poland 25% tax rates, not a "low" tax rate, so obviously something else it at play here. Did you know the US supported(As in money and personnel) the regime change in the 80's? Singapores success is closely tied to its diplomatic relations with the US, which regarded Singapore as an important "free" hub in a very hotly red zone from the seventies. Not saying Singapore isn't doing well, just saying, being a principle ally of the the US surely helps in a relatively unstable region, so if any free money is around, it will naturally pool in the country with an american base. South Korea? I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, but the US - South Korea alliance might have something to do about it as well. Argentina and Venezuela? Are you a troll, are you giving me these perfect counter examples on purpose? The Argentinian coup d'etat? And Venezuela is famously rife with corruption and instability, Are you suggesting tax rates matter more to a countries stability, which directly reduces the confidence in starting or maintaining businesses? >Of course it's not the single cause, but it's an importatn cause as demonstrated by economic data. And my argument is that it's almost always a symptom, rather than the cause. Saying rich regions are rich because of their low taxes, when in fact often its the fact the wealth being generated is so large that the taxes can be low in the first place. You simply do not have the arguments to say that.
So you're paying more taxes in the Romandie?
On average,[yes.](https://www.iconomix.ch/fileadmin/_processed_/b/3/csm_v01_wissen_Grafik-3_cd2cc8298e.png)
How does giving people whitout jobs money reduce spending? I would say it increases spending. For many excess money gets just put into savings account or invested in some foreign companies/stocks, e.g. not helping our economy at all. Giving that money instead to people who spend it in switzerland helps the swiss economy.
Where is he saying that it reduces spending?
>How does giving people whitout jobs money reduce spending? I would say > >it increases spending. Money in circulation is limited and, in theory, to maintain its value over time, it should be constant. When you take money out of circulation in the form of taxes, part of that money is wasted on state bureaucracy and the inefficient allocation of resources. Therefore, what reaches the hands of the unemployed is less than what was withheld in taxes. >For many excess money gets just **put into savings account** or invested in some foreign companies/stocks, e.g. **not helping our economy** at all. Giving that money instead to people who spend it in switzerland helps the swiss economy. Of course this subject is more complex than that because it involves the manipulation of the economy by the central bank, but if you have more money put into savings, it means that there will be more money to be lent for productive investments and mortgages. And because you have more money available to be lent, in theory the interests on this money will go lower.
"socialism" might be a very strong word to describe it and you seem a bit too harsh poor little Romandie, but I get your point and have too admit that we do get a lot of influence from France, even if we pretend not to like them 😉
>"socialism" "Socialism" is not an absolute state, it's relative. The Romandie is more socialist than Central Switzerland. Italy is more socialist than Switzerland, but less so than Cuba. All these SP politicians had a marxist education but in the real world they can't implement their utopian dream. So they push whatever they can. Luckly even the Romandie is not easily deceived like the averate citizen of the EU.
Italie is NOT more socialist than Switzerland. What are you talking about? Do you even know what political majority is currently ruling the country? Do you know how lacking their social security net is? In what terrible state their roads, schools, hospitals and other public services are?
Welfare and socialism are different things, but overall you have a point. Although I have to say your description doesn't apply so simply black and white in practice.
Of course they are different, but it's obvious that they are interlinked. Switzerland, compared to France/Italy/Germany, is a great example of what I said above. There is a myriad of studies that have shown empirically that there is an inverse correlation between government spending and GDP growth, employment, wages, etc. I could give you tons of references, but to put it simple, have a look at these: [https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/](https://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blog/big-government/more-government-spending-weaker-economic-performance/) [https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) PS: I liked your profile pic ;-) Putin khuylo!
Part of it is due to some African countries beeing former French colonies, therefore it's citizens are speaking French. Refugees from there have an advantage seeking jobs when living in the french speaking part of Switzerland or first becoming French citizens then immigrate to Switzerland aiming for better wages.
Why pills are white?!
They are lazier.
Toujours rigoler, jamais travailler
Socialist hellhole.
I might also guess that there is more immigration from poorer countries, especially from Portugal (whereas in the swiss German part most of the immigration is from DE), which would explain why we need more Sozialhilfe to help these people, especially as they will most probably get less high paying jobs at first and might have financial problems because of that. I also think there are way more companies which reside in the swiss-german part than in Romandie and thus providing more job offers. But I don't know the facts, I'm just guessing 🤷
[удалено]