Roma and the state

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.

Demonstration in Vansdorf, September 3, 2011: photo: HN - René Volfík
Demonstration in Vansdorf, September 3, 2011: photo: HN - René Volfík

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.

Minimum wage

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.

Social benefits

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.

0 comments

  1. Mirko,
    Mr. Kubec will find it difficult to worry about plagiarism when reporting is not protected.
    Warning!!!
    If you irritate Mr. Kubec in the discussion, he will take steps to block your Facebook profile.
    In other words, it will crack you like the day before yesterday it cracked me.

  2. Before 89, they all worked only formally because they lived in a system that gave everyone according to their needs, not in a system that rewarded according to ability. That's why it fell apart everywhere.

  3. @ cacti

    "Before 89, Gypsies had the opportunity to work, so a lot of them worked. So it was not necessary to spend so much on social benefits. "

    They worked, but only formally, not really. So those were exactly the same benefits as now. The only difference was that they couldn't be home but had to go somewhere.

  4. @Alas

    But in a situation where the Roma would not receive social benefits and some kind of farming law would apply, they would consider hell whether they would work or not.

  5. @ Lukáš Kubec
    when 20 out of 2 are incorporated, you will soon stop having fun trying to work more and more.
    why does a gypsy businessman (excavation work) rather employ Ukrainians and Czechs than Roma? (because he tried to employ the Roma and had to stop)
    and the good ones, they distance themselves from the Roma community. I know such a person, and when I compare his and Vandas's (DSSS) views on the Roma, Vandas comes to my mind as a Roma lover.

  6. The problem is in capitalism. Before 89, Gypsies had the opportunity to work, so many of them worked. So it was not necessary to spend so much on social benefits.
    Abolish the minimum wage? And how about legalizing child labor right away? That would be proper capitalism, as under Dickens.
    Even without a state, there are always powerful individuals who impose their rules on others. That is why a democratic rule of law is better.

  7. @Alas

    Sure. It is the price: risk: personal preferences that determine who employs the Roma and who does not. Someone doesn't like to take risks and doesn't like gypsies, then they are unemployed.

    Some people like the price reduction (due to the risk) and employ the gypsy.

    Some gypsies will be bad (let them go), some good ones (work in). And the good ones can then help the others to become the "good" ones (change habits, because they will find that Fero next door is better when he works), or the good ones will open the door to other "starting" jobs while they themselves relatively rise.

  8. it has one major flaw. Accepting a gypsy apartment with lower labor costs is quite risky.
    1. Due to his education, he can only do ancillary work
    2. in the event that he does not come to work at the moment when it is necessary to do the full thing from the point of view of tern

  9. It is purely hypothetical, but I would probably be in favor of an immediate abolition by a certain date, eg 1.1.2014, but it would have to be accompanied by further deregulation, so that the money saved on benefits remains in the economy. In my opinion, a more long-term solution has a better chance of being whistled.
    I completely agree with the article. I'm also interested in it, because I have acquaintances in the north and I've been there a lot
    http://vokonaruby.blogspot.com/2011/09/sluknovsky-pribeh.html

  10. In principle consent, only one 'detail':
    Is it really good for this to happen 'from day to day'? You yourself write that it would have sacrifices and in the short term it would have the exact opposite effect.

    It's like starting to contribute to your offspring and ending it from day to day after a while (when he gets used to it). This is not help, it will bring more problems.

    The alternative is to tell the offspring that it cannot continue like this and gradually end the 'help'.

    Here, too, it could be a viable (and politically easier) solution to end this gradually.

    Perhaps an analogy with regulated rents could be used here, where sudden deregulation could suddenly create a lot of debtors or homeless people, so it is needed gradually. (I no longer debate how fast / slow.)

    There is also a difference in the long run: the immediate (short-term painful) solution simply has a great chance of being whistled and memorized in people negatively (the fact that even the voter has a memory could even be proven here). The party that would do this would quite possibly end quite soon, a party saying 'we will fix it' would appear, and after the next election everything would return to normal (and maybe it would be even worse).

    Why wasn't the left-wing coup booed like this? Because they trampled on the right to vote. That was quite possibly the only reason. But to interfere with the right to vote because of such changes? Here, IMHO would not sanctify the purpose of the means and would only delay the end, to which the Communists would probably contribute and thus come to power.

    So in my opinion, the best and, paradoxically, the fastest solution is to do it in slow motion.

  11. Surely someone has already said much of the text. However, I don't quote anyone directly here, I sat down and wrote everything in one go. Any matches are random, but I'm not saying I'm the first to write this. Certainly not.

    (Wage costs, for example, were dealt with by Milton Friedman when asked about a law that would guarantee equal pay for women and men, but it can be said that the basis for the argument was laid by Ricardo or perhaps Smith; I really can't find things about the minimum wage, who was the first, because it was said by many people… these are such obvious things that they were simply discovered by many people many times in history)

  12. Luke, when you quote or just mention an idea, shouldn't you mention the original author?

    However, you speak to me from the soul 🙂

  13. I guess I wrote it wrong because you didn't understand the end of the article. Nobody is talking about the revolution here.

    Evolution, not revolution.

  14. Juchůů! Another revolution that will have its victims, but in the end you will sweep away the old bad system, after which only the dream blahooobyt and beauty and joy and equality and freedom will take place. Come with us! - Listen, God. In your view, perhaps an interesting theory (which I don't believe) becomes a terrible ideology…

    This is where I have your Viennese Popper at hand, who says of Marxism: "It is terrible to claim a kind of knowledge that will allow you to risk other people's lives for uncritically accepted dogma or for a dream that may prove unrealizable."

Comments are off.