The state decided to nationalize "tens of thousands" of jobs for seven billion crowns. Or when an individual does it, it is a crime. When the team does it, it's a government support program.
Tens of thousands of people have to find new jobs. Retraining, job subsidies and other measures. Dead end.
First: it's all too expensive. 7 billion is the result - but how much does it cost issue those 7 billion? How much do tax officials cost? Who invents the projects? Who organizes them? Who implements them? Who controls the implementation?
Every similar project has been in the red since the beginning. Each such project can give us less than it costs us. We need a lot more money lidu to take so that we can take as a result just seven billion and give them back to them.
Of course - if the officials cost us something, then the money given to them will return to the "economy". But it's about forced circulation - if their job did not exist in the public sphere, if it were not necessary to finance it, it would not be necessary to collect taxes for it, it would not be necessary to finance their work out of obligation.
If it were not necessary to withdraw money from the obligation, the money would remain in the pocket to all of us - we would decide what we would like to spend that money on, in which spheres of the economy should the money take the next step in circulation. Officials would, of course, find their place in those parts of the economy that would arise or develop as a result of this forced circulation.
If they officials were funded by voluntary circulation, it would mean that they would satisfy someone's needs. They would help someone improve their own well-being, they would commit economic growth.
And economic growth is a much better form search employment for the unemployed than any state program that stifles growth.
Up to 24 thousand crowns per month for the entire year, employers will receive for each newly hired young employee up to 30 years of age from the records of the labor office. In total, only this part of the support could climb to 288 thousand crowns per year.
Economic growth and progress are also marked by falling prices. Thanks to falling prices, more and more goods or services are becoming accessible to a wider section of the population, which can thus satisfy many more needs and live a better life.
So if it is too expensive to create a job in some areas in existing sectors, it does not mean that we have to subsidize its creation - quite the contrary!
It means that place that is not necessary. It means that change is needed, innovation. By subsidizing the old and obviously unnecessary, we will not bring about change. The only result will be a prolongation of the agony, when after the end of the subsidy program, everyone will be "terribly surprised" how the unemployment of the fresh people in their thirties has risen.
It is the same as if the state subsidized the production of contactless phones, because their production is too expensive today. It is absurd, but by some mystery this logic seems to many people to be completely correct at jobs.
But at the same time, there is a tremendous level of hypocrisy that affects a huge group of people. These are those who swear at outrageous billionaires who "steal the budget" from subsidies, but when it comes to subsidizing their jobs, for example, they are able to argue about it to the bone. Is it the same thing?
But please - they are workers / trade unionists / railway workers / farmers / health workers / teachers / the poor, the exceptional ones who deserve to be funded with your money without your consent. Unlike from those evil billionaires.
Or when it is done by an individual, it is a crime. When the team does it, it's a government support program.
Nationalization of employment
When customers don't want to buy their work, it's the customers' fault. The state must force customers to finance turnover and their place.
As a result, similar subsidies are nothing more than a salary paid by the state. Subsidized workers already they are not employees of the private sector, but of the state sector.
The state does not directly declare it. You are not signing a contract with the state, but the state here, from a position of power, creates such conditions that only such places are created as the state apparatus wishes. It's about a new form of nationalizationwhich is all the more dangerous because it is much harder to recognize it.
All those who claim how the public sector is cut and liquidated are either blind or deliberately deceiving. The state apparatus is growing right in front of our eyes.
All state programs and subsidies are, of course, available to the state personnel agency called Employment Department. This state staffing agency thus gains an unfair advantage over its competition - private agencies: funding from us all, and even more absurd, including its competitors.
The development of often much more efficient private agencies is thus suppressed at the expense of an inefficient state jetty, which, despite billions of state support, from the money of all of us, has much less success in search application for their clients.
The most expensive
So to sum it up:
- We choose very expensive from people's pockets, for example 15-20 billion,
- thus preventing the formation wanted jobs and business opportunities,
- to take 7 billion of them, to pay for the creation of jobs that are no longer available (and to create new jobs and opportunities instead),
- with which we will achieve even more higher advantage state recruitment agencies as opposed to private,
- thereby we will worsen the possibility of finding a new application for the next unemployed.
And we will call it the fight against unemployment.