Should the income of the top managers in switzerland be limited?

Left, green and unions want to enforce in a referendum that in a company the highest reward can not be more than the lowest wage on the lowest wage

The boys’ socialists in Switzerland have launched an initiative with the support of the Socialist Party, the Grunen and Unions, who wants to radically short the income of the managers. No employee should earn less in one year than the highest paid manager in a month. Is required to anchor in the emergence that in a company of the highest reward is no more than the twelve of the lowest wage. Therefore, the initiative is called for the last year more than the required 100.000 voices were collected, 1:12 – for just lithe. The people should vote on the righteous leann and can ensure fair rules in the economy.

Poster of the Juso initiative

The National Council has to deal with this initiative today, the Federal Council has already recommended to reject it, although he also sees the problem of the ever-ending gap between the top earners and the rest of the workers:

The Federal Council points out that the leaning and income in Switzerland have developed quite balanced since the 1990s before the available information. What, on the other hand, concerns the very high others, he agrees with the initiators and initiates that the excesses observed in recent years could lead to social and economic problems. Nonetheless, the Federal Council considered that the targeted objective can not be achieved with the measures proposed by the initial and initiator-initiating initiators and that the measures in the field of wage education and the redistribution of income that has already been made or currently being developed is better suited for that are.

The definition of the high income in the private sector is the case of companies, a state definition was the "Local attractiveness of Switzerland" inflate for important industries. In addition, the state is strut "with the tax system and with numerous transfers in the social area a compensation of the income distribution".

Rough opportunities was not allowed to have the initiative, but the Swiss Trade Union Confederation has made himself strong again. "Today’s wage shears are pure willkur", it is called there. "They are an expression of an arrogant mental tentatat, which sees economic success only as a product of a narrow manager elite. That’s correct." Refer to the coarse gap, as you can find everywhere, not only in Switzerland: "The ratio from the highest highest at the very low in 2011 amounts to Novartis 266: 1, at Nestle 215: 1, at Roche 213: 1." And you expect that with the 1: 12 regulation nobody poverty fears: "Pays a company’s lowest leaning of 4000.- The month, as the corresponding SGB People’s Initiative provides, then there is still 576’000 for the tips of the same operation.- per year. At the starvation tags you do not have to .. " And the unions demand courage before the eternal threat that the top managers and entrepreneurs were migrating:

Switzerland has the first to chase the democratic self-determination law as the first. The French and the Germans did that much later. Now, when we chase the furests in the economic world – or bring only reason – then the broadcast.

Everything only emotional

This is of course true from the perspective of the middle class, but in the economic new Zurcher Zeitung (NZZ) is under the title, the socket of the Pandora was advertised to pursue the initiative to pursue the initiative Blob. The reasoning is expected in its general burst, but not uninteresting and teaching baking, especially since in response to the advertising of the Trade Union Confederation is also mentioned that the monthly gross median wage in 2010 for manner 6.397 francs and for women 5.221 francs fraud. Apparently, you also have a little concern that a referendum will take place.

The debate is only "emotionally" guided. Emotional is the criticism of the non-pay of managers for the NZZ commentator: "Why deserves a nurse who has a sophisticated and demanding work, as much less than the head of pharmaconzern Novartis?" But that’s just emotional, D.H. certainly by envy. And you can not get far. Criticism So also an excessive income is envy, but the insistence of these income is not treated, it could also be an emotion, rather around the vice of greed? To ask why someone has to earn millions a year, should therefore not be asked because there is thus in the deepers of the emotions.

Any restriction is detrimental to the following reasoning, which requires objectivity for a restriction, but no for the respective high of income:

The always rejected argument, which is the current spread of the leaning is unfair, does not force. Because the individual settings on justice vary greatly. There is no over all doubts. It would not even be "fairer", If the manager from the SGB computing example was allowed to earn ten times more than the labor force with the lowest pay?

The twelfade income is likely, in fact, "fair mab", so the writer, but does not give it at all, so the unfounded conclusion, which is why one obviously a restriction is certainly not demanding thirst. Behind the discussion about the righteousness, economic ies could step in the background, fears the NZZ journalist, which is of course white, on which side he must stand to keep his job. Soothing he guides that the gap between the rich and arm did not become gross, but between 1998 and 2009 is the "inequality" stable. That’s the springboard to make before the "Economic consequences of state intervention in the definition process for managerial" to warn. Be affected "Above all, the top earners of pharmaceutical, chemistry, financial and trading companies, … the Switzerland’s economic location is so important", Bankers rather not spoken.

And what made companies when the salary of their top managers were capped? They did not migrate, they were even "forced", Does the NZZ journalist and conjure the apocalypse, as always made with these topics to show people and politicians that allegedly all always sit in the same boat as the rich and therefore have their expectations to joints:

In the last consequence, they were forced to relocate at least parts of their locations abroad, otherwise they could no longer recruit the best guidance from their point of view. This relocation had serious consequences for the entire Swiss economy. The value chip would be back, the unemployment rose, which shrinked inland, and the control sources were no longer rubbing. Switzerland as a whole. So no one serves no one.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: