Sometimes it is better to do nothing. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what the state did not follow. State "aid" to the Roma (and many other "minorities") has led to the creation of a perverted system, the fruits of which we are reaping today. However, it is the Roma who should fight against state interference in their affairs.
Events in the Šluknov region bring us back to the question, which has been debated many times: what about the Roma and the state? What about them? How to deal with bad relations between the Roma and the "majority"?
I grew up among gypsies, so I'm interested in this issue.
Sometimes it is better to do nothing. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what the state did not follow. State "aid" Roma (and many other "minorities") led to the creation of a perverted systemwhose fruit we are reaping today.
I believe that those who promoted various state care programs meant it well. They had the best intentions - they just wanted to help people who don't have it easy. Many of them say that today's problems are due to the fact that the state cares little or that, although it cares about Roma issues, it does not care well.
However, I think so the current problems are the result of the state taking care of the Roma issue at all.
Setting a minimum wage is one of the roots of the problem. Imagine that you are an entrepreneur selling hot dogs, for example, and the state will tell you: "if your monthly income does not exceed CZK 10, you cannot do business."
This is exactly the minimum wage. People in the labor market offer their workforce - their product - and customers (employers) choose according to market prices, information.
The bidder (employees) also tries to estimate the development of future prices and specialize accordingly and adapt its offer to future demand. The employee is a businessman, a speculator.
The minimum wage thus determines the minimum income from which you can conclude a contract with customers. No one can legally compete with a lower price.
If the “majority company”, including customers (employers), has prejudices against Roma suppliers (employees), the only way for Roma to compete with their "white" competitors is to offer a lower price on the labor market. Only in this way can they show that they are able to work, that they can work more efficiently than the majority. Only in this way can they gain work experience, references and, in the future, a better salary and a better social status.
Possibility competing at a lower price is a huge lever against discrimination. The employer has to decide: will I give 10 crowns a month to a white employee, or 000 crowns a month to a Roma employee for the same work?
In other words, it must decide: I am willing to bear the cost of money in the amount of 3 crowns a month just because I don't like Gypsies?
He may decide that he is willing to bear these costs. However, there is competition in the market - other entrepreneurs are happy to take the opportunity to employ a free Roma labor force, they thus reduced costs and achieved higher profits than the racist entrepreneur. And only those who make a profit can do business in the long run, expand and invest in further development. Employing Roma at a lower price is then a competitive advantage non-racist employers against racites.
And we cancel all this with a minimum wage. If the price of Roma labor is lower than 8000 gross (over 10 per month with social and health taxes), there is a relatively high probability that no one will legally employ the Roma.
However, the abolition of the minimum wage is not self-saving. At present, the minimum wage is also defended by social benefits - if they exist, we must have a minimum wage, because otherwise someone could work for less than they would receive in benefits. Work would not be rewarded more than work.
Firstly, this is still the case today. If we can get, for example, 8 crowns a month in benefits for "non-work", we are rewarded twice: not only do we have the money, but we also have free time that we don't have to spend working. If we get 8 crowns a month in benefits, it is possible that in reality it is a higher income than when we work from morning to evening for 12 net.
In the case of social benefits, if we are prevented from working by the minimum wage, we do not bear it opportunity cost.
But the whole problem is much worse. Imagine again that you are selling hot dogs, the state comes to you and says: "you have to pay 40% of your income as a salary for Franta Vomáček, who is not allowed to work for you." Yes, this is exactly the principle of social benefits combined with the minimum salary. Entrepreneurs pay wages to people who are not allowed to be employed. You pay for not receiving the requested product.
If the minimum wage were to really have the effect of "separating those who work financially from those who do not," it would have to be much higher to include the "income" of leisure time that does not have to be spent on benefits. . But the higher the minimum wage, the greater the tendency towards unemployment. It would no longer be just Gypsies who would not be employed. Wages cashier in the supermarket is sometimes around 11 a month. At a time when the minimum wage would be 000 crowns, it would be, for example, those who would be highly endangered by dependence on benefits. Would the DSSS go against them as well?
Despite the fact that if we condemned the masses of other people to be dependent on benefits, we have to take money somewhere. Who will pay for it? Everyone active businessman (employee). And the more we take from them through taxes, the more advantageous will be non-work towards work, inactivity towards activity, non-productivity versus productivity.
In general, I do not understand why the Roma are called inadaptable. We have created a system here that favors "non-work" in a certain price category of labor consumption. It is something like the EU subsidizing the closure of sugar factories and then wondering that there are few sugar factories. The Roma, on the other hand, are highly adaptable, having adapted well to this head-on system.
An amazing example of their adaptability is the housing allowance, which is also a social benefit. Which of you wouldn't mind an increase in rent? Many Roma do not mind, thanks to this benefit. Homeowners, after all they used the dose skillfullywhich led to the creation of the ghetto.
If you bring together people who are rewarded for not working, who do not need to invest in their future (what to go to school for when I have benefits,), it will logically end in crime.
Monopoly on security
The whole thing is completed by the fact that self-defense is a difficult thing. High regulation of possession of weapons, an uncertain future in a time of "inadequate defense" and a state monopoly on security (police) have led to the rise of petty crime in problem areas.
How would a rift in that bar turn out if they were drawn against the machetes firearms? If shop owners in troubled locations had "protection toys" hidden under the counter?
What would the activity of the police look like if the local municipalities (their inhabitants) could "hire" another security service and no longer pay taxes to the state police? What local security would look likeif local "sheriffs" (police chiefs) were elected?
At a time when the state is almost impossible to defend itself, it must ensure the protection of its citizens. Instead of funding research into endangered flowers or a theater institute (a relic from the socialist era), the police budget could be increased. Of course that the possibility of competition would be an even better alternative, but I do not see it as realistic, at least in the coming years (in the Czech Republic, for example in the USA, private police exist).
The principle of violence
However, the whole problem has one thing in common: the state forces one against their own will to give money to others. It is a violent act, an enforcement on which the whole system is built.
We cannot expect that in a system that is based on the principle of violence (theft), the two groups will behave nicely and considerately. When someone steals your radio from your car, you also don't lovingly hug it, thank it or deny it play well.
At a time when people are not forced to cooperate, when that cooperation is voluntary, it is likely that people will treat each other "somehow better". Why? Because if we work together voluntarily, it means that we need each other. And you can leave voluntary cooperation at any time. Would you work voluntarily with someone who robs you?
The solution is not easy
It may seem easy to solve the problems - it is enough to abolish the minimum wage, abolish social benefits (or - let's say - at least reduce) and change the role of the police.
However, it is not that easy. Try the previous steps enforce in politics. If you succeed, try to keep the "new system".
We cannot expect that as soon as we achieve this, the Roma will go to work and the world will be beautiful. No, we would probably expect the exact opposite, many of those who were addicted to benefits would resort to crime. These would be mainly young people who know nothing but benefits.
It would be a difficult period, but only temporary. I dare not estimate how long it would take. However, it would not be a "mistake" to disrupt the whole paternalistic one system, it would only be a reverberation of that current system. The result of its abolition would be a society in which one could probably live much better.
To the topic: Press release of Svobodný.