One of the explanations that have occurred more frequently in the English business magazines (most of which are financed by banks and by business and therefore reproduce the neoliberal economic doctrine that such groups promote) the high unemployment in Spain, is the alleged rigidity of the labor market, the result of what is considered excessive influence of trade unions in their advocacy of permanent contracts (called insiders , ie those in the labor market) are protecting older workers at the expense of young people who have difficulty in finding work (and they are called, therefore, outsiders , ie those outside the labor market), as existing jobs are already occupied by other older workers (who may be their parents.) As a result of better security to the father, making it difficult to dismiss, the employer will think twice before offering a job to his son, fearing that later you can not dismiss him. And it is concluded that the employer does not believe employment and, therefore, unemployment is high. It thus assumes that there is an intergenerational struggle for jobs. This struggle between generations is also presented by the same authors in the case of pensions, although there is among young people and their parents, but among young people and their grandparents. The elderly, we are told, are overprotected, living on very favorable terms, the result of overly generous pensions, and this at the expense of young people who contribute more than their fair share by paying the pensions of their grandparents, they themselves pensions can enjoy the result of the alleged insolvency of Social Security (see my critique of David Taguas, faithful representative neoliberal thinking, which was in its day, the business office director at La Moncloa in the Zapatero government, "Social Security is viable. Reply to David Taguas "www.vnavarro.org. 02/24/1910).
thesis insiders-outsiders as a cause of unemployment was promoted several years ago by the Economic Secretary OECD (the club of the richest countries in the world) in its Employment Outlook 1999 report. In this report indicated that the fact that the average unemployment in the countries of the EU-15 had been higher (during the period 1980-1999) than in the U.S. was because the labor markets of those countries were more rigid and regulated than the U.S.. And as proof, referring to the dichotomy insiders versus outsiders which they say characterized the labor markets Europeans. This theory was quickly debunked, as the data readily showed the error of their assumptions. In fact, unemployment in the countries that constitute the EU-15 had been lower during the earlier period 1960-1980, that U.S. unemployment, even though European labor markets were already regulated then more Americans. Moreover, labor markets in the EU-15 were more deregulated in the 1980-1999 period in the previous period, 1960-1980. I could not, therefore, considered that the highest unemployment in the EU could be attributed to greater regulation of European labor markets (or to the insiders-outsiders ). Moreover, unemployment among young people in the U.S. (which had no such dichotomy outsiders-insiders ) was much higher than in several countries of the EU-15. This led the OECD had to correct his thesis. And in its Employment Outlook 2006 report concluded with the phrase "our analysis of the OECD can say that the impact of the protectionist measures of employment (my note, the narrative used to define what the authors call neoliberal labor rigidities) is statistically insignificant to explain the level of unemployment in OECD Countries. " Clearer water. Since then, the OECD has stopped using the argument outsider-insider to explain unemployment (albeit using other arguments, equally erroneous therefore remains stagnant in neoliberal thought).
But neoliberal economists, impervious to the data, keep repeating the dogma Insiders-outsiders to explain unemployment, being the latest example of John J. article Dolan in The Country 6/17/1910 where, again, the insiders , adult workers are responsible for high youth unemployment, concluding that it is better for all to be provided to employers who may dismiss alike to all workers, assuming that today's entrepreneurs have great difficulty in doing so. The data, however, does not support this assumption. According to Official data from Ministry of Labour, in the period October 2008 to October 2009, 50% of contracts have been extinct for compensation of only 8 days per year. And most of the remainder have received compensation of 20 days per year, and only a minority of unfair dismissal, compensation has been from 33 to 45 days per year. Indeed. And as you wrote Vidal Aragonese constitutional reform based on myths, "The Newspaper (17/06/1910)," the cost to employers is substantially lower in many cases. In the case of individual and collective dismissals in firms with fewer than 25 employees arising from economic, technical or organizational and productive, the employer paid (in 2009) to 60% and FOGASA (Wage Guarantee Fund) the remaining 40%. And the insolvent companies did not pay any amount, assuming FOGASA total compensation . "
What we are seeing is a huge media and ideological onslaught aimed at unions blame high unemployment in Spain. For this, the content, which includes an attempt to separate the role unions defending the interests of workers, unions as presenting corporatist apparatus defending their own interests, which are presented as different-in fact, even opposed, to the interests of the workers they represent. An example of this approach is the article by Francesc Homs i Molist right representative in Catalonia, CIU, in The Century (18/06/1910) which makes the statement that if the PSOE was in fact genuine solidarity with workers should deal with the unions, because they are hindering the resolution of high unemployment. It's amazing how the Right in Spain (responsible for Spain, and Catalonia are at the tail of the EU in its welfare state and that the wages of workers are of the lowest) are now appearing as the prabajadores parties (see my article "Partido Popular, is the Workers' Party?" The Plural 6/14/1910, and "conservative and liberal nationalism in Spain," early- publication Public .
never mentioned causes of unemployment What
multiple Scientific studies have shown that the cause more important for creating or destroying jobs is the demand that employers have on consumption goods they produce. The business world will not expand their staff unless there is an increase of the products manufactured and sold. And this is the situation in Spain. The business world is faced with a serious shortage in demand. The unemployment problem is not in the labor market, but low demand and the type of demand and production. And sluggish demand is due to two issues that the emphasis on the labor market is masking. One is the excessive polarization of incomes in Europe and Spain. Labor income in the EU have declined in spectacular fashion, whereas capital income have increased enormously. And this polarization has been even more pronounced in Spain. Corporate profits grew 73% in Spain in the period 1995-2005 (more than double the average EU-15, 33%), while labor costs increased over the same period by 3.7% (five times less than in the EU, 18.2%), data that rarely appear in economic journals, or even the general press. And this situation has created several problems. One is the low demand (due to the fall of the wage bill) and the consequent debt of the popular classes. The heavy indebtedness of English households is based on this fact. According to the English Tax Agency, in 2007, 63% of employees (16.7 million workers) had a gross salary of 1,100 euros. What this implies is a great shortage in the purchasing power of the working class, deeply in debt, and when the loan failed, crippled domestic demand. And this happens in every economic downturn that Spain has had. Poverty and public sector (public expenditure Spain has the lowest per capita EU-15) also explains the public debt and the limited power and resources the state has in its ability to stimulate the economy. This low power alternative (private stimulus) is a consequence of neoliberal policies of Right, that rather than workers' parties have always been the party of bankers and businessmen, who are opposed to increasing taxes (as the tax office, an employer pays less tax than an employee) and public spending thus hindering the growth of public spending as a stimulus for economic recovery and falling unemployment.
And the other consequence of the decline in wage income is low productivity in many sectors of the economy. Contrary to neoliberal economists who write, the fact that wages are low not because the productivity is low, but conversely, the productivity is low due to the existence of low wages. If an employer has the option of paying low wages because there are a number of candidates for a job (for the harvest or tourism or construction, as examples), the wages they pay are low. Now if you are not allowed to pay low wages, have to invest in the workplace and the worker to ensure that a worker do that now make ten.
This is what happens in the Nordic countries, social democratic tradition. In reality, the economist Meiner convinced many years ago the Social Democratic government and the Swedish trade unions that they could not afford to lower wages in Sweden. A low-wage economy was and is an inefficient economy. Hence the ban on low pay. Collective agreements, low wages are not allowed, or temporary situations. And this had a major impact on economic productivity. Needless to say, companies that collapsed was unable to pay such wages, but was and is a public responsibility to find a job (of similar level of pay) a worker who has quit the company that closed. It is a public responsibility to find, not just a job, but also a home and school for their children, among other requirements.
You can not ask the worker flexibility, create you based on insecurity, as in Spain, where the banking business and is very spoiled, having been overprotected by political power, not only during his dictatorship, but also later. In Spain there is much talk of labor rigidity, when the biggest problem is the rigidity and hardness business. The first is the answer to the second. And the failure of public administration in this dimension is huge. It is unfair to demand flexibility at the expense of worker safety. Spain has the protection expenditure lower social EU-15. Only 20%, compared with 32% in Sweden and 30% in Denmark. Business and English banks and the English state have not understood that the protection and social cohesion are key elements to ensure high productivity. All countries of southern Europe have low productivity because they have little social protection. The English business world, known for its toughness (and supported by means of persuasion ahead of him) has opposed the expansion of public spending and social protection, preferring to get the job flexibility, not security, but with increased insecurity. Hence the high unemployment. But it is unlikely that the reader hear, see it or hear in the media with the widest circulation of the country, where over the coming months we will see a huge onslaught against the unions, behind which there is an attempt further diluting the social Spain and the English social protection.
See article PDF
A VIDEO 
PHOTOS 
.jpg)
.jpg)
A CURIOSITY 
