The problem is it’s extremely difficult to regulate how profits are distributed. We cite how burger king pays their employees much more in Denmark but there’s also far fewer Burger Kings in Denmark. Only the most profitable locations can be opened because anything at the margin isn’t worth opening. So there’s were the rub lies. Countries that have have greater worker protections tend to have slower business creation.
There is a disincentive to start and open a company in a country with very strong worker protections. It should be obvious from looking at Europe. Italy and France with very strong worker protections have shrinking economies while those that have worker protections but not nearly as strong are still growing. A global software company isn’t going to open an office in France. They might do it in Ireland, UK, or Germany but they won’t do it in France. There’s a balance between regulation and business. So far I’ve yet to see a western government implement policy that favors strong worker protections and spurred an economic boom. Those two things seem to compete against each other. Maybe where we are here with the economy is the best that can be achieved. More regulation probably isn’t going to stimulate growth less regulation might stimulate some growth but comes with the negative consequences of more exploitation of labor.[/quote]
As spdrun and MM already noted, “growth for the sake of growth” is not a good thing. It results in more environmental damage, a greater consumption culture (which I think is a huge negative), and puts everyone on the corporate hamster wheel where everyone keeps running faster and longer without actually getting anywhere.
As for countries that have seen economic improvements after implementing greater worker protections…can you point to examples where worker protections and compensation were reduced, and the economy thrived as a result? More importantly, has this shift toward a more capital-friendly economy benefited a greater number of people in a more positive way than a more labor-friendly economy?
You’ll have to look up the information on the links I’ve provided above to see how different countries compare. From what I can see, the countries with the greatest labor protections, highest relative wages, and higher (almost always progressive) taxes tend to have the strongest economies and best quality of life for the greatest possible number of people.
And while there might not be as many Burger Kings in Denmark, their unemployment rate is lower than ours, so somebody is employing these people. AND they have healthcare, pensions, five weeks paid vacation(!), and a happier population of workers. I’d much rather have that than have a fast-food restaurant on every corner, to be sure.
[Whoops! Yet ANOTHER example to show what an utter failure trickle-down really is; as if we really need another example.]
And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.
And if you look at most countries where labor-led revolutions have happened, you’ll usually see a significant improvement in the economy and in the well-being of the general population IF the revolution happens in a unified and effective manner with strong leadership afterward, and IF other (usually capitalist) governments don’t try to thwart the efforts of the revolutionaries (which is what often happens, unfortunately).
