« In the zero sum game we all become financial losers »
Today, considerably more than a few decades ago consider that benefits for a group can only be achieved at the expense of other groups. A dangerous zero summary is spreading in the western world.
One explanation is that economic growth has been lower than before. New research Shows that you more easily embrace zero summary about your first decades in life was characterized by weak economic growth. The reason is easily: as resources do not grow, the conflicts of the resources that exist increase. If one is to get more, the other must get less.
Therefore, it is Positive that the issue of Sweden’s growth recently has been discussed more and more. Swedish Enterprise’s recently published Growth goals About 2.5 percent per year is a welcome attempt to further focus on Sweden’s most important challenge.
But research shows that the view of economic growth is also determined by how it is achieved. If growth takes place at the expense of the climate, both nature and future generations are losers. If growth is created by increasing poverty and wealth differences, then it is obvious that not everyone is a winner.
In the same way, zero summary is strengthened when growth does not contribute to higher quality of life or when the extremely marketed Swedish school system with good precision disadvantages students from difficult growing up conditions. Future generations are allowed to pay the price when the sharply reduced taxes have resulted in a several decades long period of under -investment in the country’s growth capacity.
Growth policy has reduced support for growth
The list can be made longer, but the conclusion is clear: the focus on growth policy that, among other things, Swedish Enterprise has long been cherished, has so far not increased growth in any significant way, but in recent decades it has contributed to strengthening zero summary. Growth policy has reduced support for growth.
Therefore, must Politics think new. A prerequisite for this is to remind us that the interests of business are not always compatible with social interest. This is something that Adam Smith has already taught us, but which we have forgotten in recent decades. The conditions of business are obviously extremely important, but that does not mean, as we have seen, that employers’ self -interest always leads to the best for society. A long -term judgmental growth policy must have the ability to sort better in this.
One aspect of the growth policy challenge is thus to ensure that all capital types in society’s balance sheet develop in the right direction. Thus, it is not just about raising employees’ skills and stimulating technological development. Equally important is to ensure nature’s capital and social capital.
For example, how can Sweden and the rest of the Nordic have a very high employment rate among low -skilled, despite the allegedly high minimum wages?
Social capital is very much about the labor market. In this area, the dangerous zero summary is most prominent. According to Swedish Enterprise, growth can only be raised through reforms such as reduced unemployment insurance funds, more insecure employment, unlocked employment protection, limited conflict law and reduced minimum wages. Regulations in the labor market cannot lead to anything other than fewer jobs.
Through a network of opinion -forming activities, the thesis is driven that trade union organization, collective agreements and collective wage negotiations limit companies’ flexibility. Reforms of this kind mean nothing but a redistribution of power from employees to employers.
This dominant The approach has contributed to the fact that we in Sweden are dragging after the outside world when it comes to absorbing the rapid -growing research that studies how labor markets in practice work. But the results are clear: it has become much more difficult, like Swedish business, to hold on to a theoretical model of the labor market that says very little about reality, but which supports a certain political approach.
For example, how can Sweden and the rest of the Nordic have a very high employment rate among low -skilled, despite the allegedly high minimum wages? How can we belong to the group of countries with absolutely highest productivity while we have more low -productivity employees in work than other countries? How can Swedish productivity be at a world top while the union’s degree is highest in the world?
Competition in the labor market is as important for growth as competition in product markets
These are some of the issues that will be addressed at the conference that the unions within the industry Productivity Commission And the think tank Arena idea On Tuesday, Stockholm will be hosted.
A starting point is that competition in the labor market is as important for growth as competition in product markets. But research shows that competition for employees is often insufficient. This means that companies can pay wages that are under the employees’ contributions to the business. This, just like in the product markets, establishes a market power that raises prices, reduces employment and lowers productivity.
Regulations and collective solutions then contribute to restricting companies’ market power. Everyone becomes a winner if this happens, except employers. Just as with the question of the school system and the long period of under -investment in Sweden’s growth ability, the question becomes whether Swedish Enterprise will get caught up in its own interest – or whether the look is raised and focus on what is best for the social economy, the labor market and the citizens.
Could the zero summary be something other than the long -term challenge of the business community?
