1:12 will it destroy swiss economy?

[DC]

The problem is, "the collective" may be comprised of people who are, (not to be insulting) often ignorant of the issues they are voting on. They may vote for things that sound good in principal but are horrible ideas in practice. And it can set up situations where you get either conflicting decisions, or decisions which can tie the government's hands.

California is often seen as an example of problems with direct democracy. They have a budget deficit, yet there are various spending demands that were made via referendums. And I think there are also restrictions on raising taxes. (Admittedly, I'm not from California, and I know the situation is a bit more complex than that... but that's the basics.)

Now, its possible that Switzerland can and will avoid these problems. Maybe their population is better educated, or the rules regarding referendums make such conflicts rare. But it can happen.

Never underestimate a person's ability to shift blame to others.

yet people here voted overwhelmingly (more than 80%) for limitations on government spending.
and i think many politicans are just as ignorant about things they vote on. i still see not what is so much better about the decision of a few compared to the decision of the people.

 

[Segnosaur]

The problem is, "the collective" may be comprised of people who are, (not to be insulting) often ignorant of the issues they are voting on. They may vote for things that sound good in principal but are horrible ideas in practice. And it can set up situations where you get either conflicting decisions, or decisions which can tie the government's hands.

California is often seen as an example of problems with direct democracy. They have a budget deficit, yet there are various spending demands that were made via referendums.

Now, its possible that Switzerland can and will avoid these problems. Maybe their population is better educated, or the rules regarding referendums make such conflicts rare. But it can happen.

yet people here voted overwhelmingly (more than 80%) for limitations on government spending.

Keep in mind that when I mentioned California, I was using it as a more general example (rather than a specific example) of how "direct democracy" might run into problems. I'm not saying that all jurisdictions that allow direct democracy will have problems with rampant spending... just that it could be a problem.

As I said before, whether such problems could arise depends on the general education of the population and the way such referendums are handled. (An earlier poster pointed to a problem where, in Switzerland, many such referendums have issues regarding language translation.)

But here's a question... you said people there voted in favor of limiting government spending. What if spending on a particular project was actually a good thing? What if spending on (for example) a piece of infrastructure (a road or bridge) would be beneficial economically, but a referendum decided "No more spending"? Or what if it were something like voting for a public health initiative (water fluoridation or vaccination) yet anti-science wing-nuts managed to convince people not to vote for it?

...and i think many politicans are just as ignorant about things they vote on. i still see not what is so much better about the decision of a few compared to the decision of the people.

When you're dealing with decisions by the government, they (hopefully) use the opinions of experts, and such experts really have to deal with people "at the top" (since many politicians follow party lines).

It would be easier for scientist X or economist Y to talk to the president/prime minister/king and say "this is what the problem is" and get action, instead of trying to go to a group of citizens, who's opinions might end up listening to not just scientist X or economist Y, but snake-oil salesman Z.

 

[DC]

Keep in mind that when I mentioned California, I was using it as a more general example (rather than a specific example) of how "direct democracy" might run into problems. I'm not saying that all jurisdictions that allow direct democracy will have problems with rampant spending... just that it could be a problem.

As I said before, whether such problems could arise depends on the general education of the population and the way such referendums are handled. (An earlier poster pointed to a problem where, in Switzerland, many such referendums have issues regarding language translation.)

But here's a question... you said people there voted in favor of limiting government spending. What if spending on a particular project was actually a good thing? What if spending on (for example) a piece of infrastructure (a road or bridge) would be beneficial economically, but a referendum decided "No more spending"? Or what if it were something like voting for a public health initiative (water fluoridation or vaccination) yet anti-science wing-nuts managed to convince people not to vote for it?

When you're dealing with decisions by the government, they (hopefully) use the opinions of experts, and such experts really have to deal with people "at the top" (since many politicians follow party lines).

It would be easier for scientist X or economist Y to talk to the president/prime minister/king and say "this is what the problem is" and get action, instead of trying to go to a group of citizens, who's opinions might end up listening to not just scientist X or economist Y, but snake-oil salesman Z.

considerring the debt of the representative democracies , i don't think bringing up spending is a good argument against direct democracy and in favor of representative democracy.

the language issue would still be in a representative democracy. that is another "problem".

such spending that is necesary is considered in the law.
the goal is to have a balanced budget over long time. and not, no more spending.

we have had water fluoridation, we changed to salt fluoridation.
we don't have mandatory vacination, but neither do our representative democratic neighbours have that.

politicsters are known to be listening not only to experts but often listening to lobbiest. surely the same goes for people in general.
i think the chance of a false decision is much bigger if the decision is made by only a few rather than by a big number of people.

The US comes to mind where politicsters are listening to Mr. Monckton about AGW, a known charlatan and liar with 0 expertise about climatology....
so much for representative democracy being better than direct democracy

 

[Caper]

because not even the young socialists, who started the initiative, think everyone should earn the same. they even accept the fact that the same work in different companies or industries can pay more. also it is generally accepted that people with more responsibility in a company should earn more.

I'm pretty right wing.... I generally reject something like that. But how many industries does that truly effect? I'm not in the private sector... but I don't think even the highest guy in my org makes more then 12X then the lowest.... maybe 8X.... and he deserves it.

Also... it sounds something that can be easily stepped around.
1) You could hire illegal workers for the low paying jobs.
&
2) You could contract out all low paying jobs.

 

[DC]

I'm pretty right wing.... I generally reject something like that. But how many industries does that truly effect? I'm not in the private sector... but I don't think even the highest guy in my org makes more then 12X then the lowest.... maybe 8X.... and he deserves it.

Also... it sounds something that can be easily stepped around.
1) You could hire illegal workers for the low paying jobs.
&
2) You could contract out all low paying jobs.

that is indeed a good question and i don't know. only in the first company i worked i didn't know the wages of others. but in the 4 companies since then, i know it would not have affected any of them. the past 2 companies the CEO was the highest earner (more than the owner) and got only about 3 times the lowest wage. currently the company i work for the highest earner , the owner and CEO makes about twice as much as the lowest earner.

its propably only those huge companies that hire some top managers. like banks etc.

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that when I mentioned California, I was using it as a more general example (rather than a specific example) of how "direct democracy" might run into problems. I'm not saying that all jurisdictions that allow direct democracy will have problems with rampant spending... just that it could be a problem.
...
But here's a question... you said people there voted in favor of limiting government spending. What if spending on a particular project was actually a good thing? What if spending on (for example) a piece of infrastructure (a road or bridge) would be beneficial economically, but a referendum decided "No more spending"? Or what if it were something like voting for a public health initiative (water fluoridation or vaccination) yet anti-science wing-nuts managed to convince people not to vote for it?

When you're dealing with decisions by the government, they (hopefully) use the opinions of experts, and such experts really have to deal with people "at the top" (since many politicians follow party lines).

considerring the debt of the representative democracies , i don't think bringing up spending is a good argument against direct democracy and in favor of representative democracy.

Is Switzerland the one example that you're relying on? That may not be a good example, since you seem to have a few advantages that other jurisdictions do not. A single data point is not necessarily a good basis to extrapolate on.

California has a population of 38 million. They have a debt. They regularly have referendums that impact budget issues.

such spending that is necesary is considered in the law.
the goal is to have a balanced budget over long time. and not, no more spending.

What exactly does that mean? Who defines "necessary"? What do you mean "considered in the law"?

we have had water fluoridation, we changed to salt fluoridation.

Yet I can point to various cities and towns where they've had referendums where they've voted against fluoridation.

http://www2.canada.com/cowichanvalleycitizen/news/story.html?id=50a0f9ce-fa88-45b2-8fcf-873076623e33

we don't have mandatory vacination, but neither do our representative democratic neighbours have that.

Actually I was referring more to government paying for vaccines. (Our government for example has free flu shot clinics.) What if there were a referendum where people decided "we think flu shots are a waste of money" and vaccinations dropped as a result?

politicsters are known to be listening not only to experts but often listening to lobbiest.

Yes, I'm sure there are politicians who listen to lobbyists more than they should. Never claimed representative democracy with perfect (and there are cases where referendums are probably necessary). Just saying that direct democracy isn't necessarily perfect and can have problems too.

surely the same goes for people in general.
i think the chance of a false decision is much bigger if the decision is made by only a few rather than by a big number of people.

The US comes to mind where politicsters are listening to Mr. Monckton about AGW, a known charlatan and liar with 0 expertise about climatology....
so much for representative democracy being better than direct democracy

And in addition to the case I stated above where towns have rejected fluoridation, Italy held a referendum where they rejected Nuclear power, even though its top 10 generating stations are all fossil-fuel based, and most Italians support Kyoto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Italy#2011_Referendum
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/1981/most_italians_support_kyoto_protocol/

Does that prove direct democracy is automatically a failure? No... its easy to cherry pick examples where either public referendums or politicians have made mistakes.

 

[timhau]

well according to your source we are merely midfield.

Midfield among OECD countries, which should put you really close to the top in worldwide numbers.

 

[DC]

Is Switzerland the one example that you're relying on? That may not be a good example, since you seem to have a few advantages that other jurisdictions do not. A single data point is not necessarily a good basis to extrapolate on.

California has a population of 38 million. They have a debt. They regularly have referendums that impact budget issues.


What exactly does that mean? Who defines "necessary"? What do you mean "considered in the law"?


Yet I can point to various cities and towns where they've had referendums where they've voted against fluoridation.

http://www2.canada.com/cowichanvalleycitizen/news/story.html?id=50a0f9ce-fa88-45b2-8fcf-873076623e33


Actually I was referring more to government paying for vaccines. (Our government for example has free flu shot clinics.) What if there were a referendum where people decided "we think flu shots are a waste of money" and vaccinations dropped as a result?


Yes, I'm sure there are politicians who listen to lobbyists more than they should. Never claimed representative democracy with perfect (and there are cases where referendums are probably necessary). Just saying that direct democracy isn't necessarily perfect and can have problems too.

And in addition to the case I stated above where towns have rejected fluoridation, Italy held a referendum where they rejected Nuclear power, even though its top 10 generating stations are all fossil-fuel based, and most Italians support Kyoto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Italy#2011_Referendum
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/1981/most_italians_support_kyoto_protocol/

Does that prove direct democracy is automatically a failure? No... its easy to cherry pick examples where either public referendums or politicians have made mistakes.

i can pick whole representative democracies that have stopped fluoridating their water.


those that need (risk groups) flu shots get them by our health system.

neither system is perfect, i don't see how representative democracy is a better form of government. Germany is a representative democracy, yet they said no to nuclear power.
having representatives making the decisions for you does not make a system better i think. i prefer self determination.

btw, the topic is actually the 1:12 initiative, not direct democracy.

 

[DC]

Midfield among OECD countries, which should put you really close to the top in worldwide numbers.

i prefer to look at the top rather than the bottom, so OECD countries are comparable, yet there we are only in the midfield.

 

[dasmiller]

California is often seen as an example of problems with direct democracy. They have a budget deficit, yet there are various spending demands that were made via referendums. And I think there are also restrictions on raising taxes. (Admittedly, I'm not from California, and I know the situation is a bit more complex than that... but that's the basics.)

For completeness, I *am* from California, and, no, I wouldn't say it's more complex than that. There are endless specifics, of course, but I think you've got the basics pretty well covered.

One thing I would add, though: In some ways, CA has the worst of both worlds. The proposition system was never intended as an alternative to the legislature, but it has become one. And yet we still have the legislature. That enables the populace to vote down unpleasant budget measures with the attitude that "it's up to the politicians to solve this," while letting the politicians defer to the proposition process to avoid voting for unpleasant measures. Nobody's actually responsible.

/derail

 

[Segnosaur]

i can pick whole representative democracies that have stopped fluoridating their water.
...
Germany is a representative democracy, yet they said no to nuclear power.

And Canada is a representative democracy and we still use Nuclear power. And Bulgaria had a referendum and decided to use nuclear power.

The problem is, you seem to be cherry-picking one case (Switzerland), pointing to its economic success, and saying "see? Direct democracy is better" when its really only a single case.

If you have a stupid population, they will make stupid decisions in referendums, and/or vote for bad politicians. If you have smart voters, they will make smart decisions on referendums, but they will also be more likely to vote for better politicians.

The chief advantage of representational democracy is that there's a better chance that, regardless of the decision, there is a better chance of at least being coherent.

btw, the topic is actually the 1:12 initiative, not direct democracy.

Well you were the one who first said "I don't see how a decision by a few elected ones is any better than the decision of the collective.". I was simply pointing out why decisions by "a few elected ones" often exceeds those of the collective.

As for the 1:12 initiative... other people have pointed out how companies might find loopholes. (splitting companies up, etc.)

One poster pointed out how this vote might have been influenced by the case of Swiss air going bankrupt (while at the same time executives continued to receive bonuses). If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to have a more "focused" piece of legislation? I.e. rather than affect all companies with wage restrictions (even successful ones), bring in laws that require greater oversight during bankruptcy proceedings.)

 

[MikeG]

......Switzerland would better off in the Euro Zone,........

Really?!

On the OP question......I think 1:12 is unrealistic, but 1:20 would make more sense. But does anyone think that such a rule wouldn't be got around, with deferred share options, enlarged pensions, golden handshakes etc.? Seems totally unenforceable to me.

 

[DC]

And Canada is a representative democracy and we still use Nuclear power. And Bulgaria had a referendum and decided to use nuclear power.

The problem is, you seem to be cherry-picking one case (Switzerland), pointing to its economic success, and saying "see? Direct democracy is better" when its really only a single case.

If you have a stupid population, they will make stupid decisions in referendums, and/or vote for bad politicians. If you have smart voters, they will make smart decisions on referendums, but they will also be more likely to vote for better politicians.

The chief advantage of representational democracy is that there's a better chance that, regardless of the decision, there is a better chance of at least being coherent.

what evidence do you base this claim on?

Well you were the one who first said "I don't see how a decision by a few elected ones is any better than the decision of the collective.". I was simply pointing out why decisions by "a few elected ones" often exceeds those of the collective.

As for the 1:12 initiative... other people have pointed out how companies might find loopholes. (splitting companies up, etc.)

One poster pointed out how this vote might have been influenced by the case of Swiss air going bankrupt (while at the same time executives continued to receive bonuses). If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to have a more "focused" piece of legislation? I.e. rather than affect all companies with wage restrictions (even successful ones), bring in laws that require greater oversight during bankruptcy proceedings.)

but you actually failed to demonstrate what you claim.

well i think the idea is to solve the problem of income inequality in general, not just cases of abuse like in the case of Swissair ore UBS etc.

 

[DC]

Really?!

On the OP question......I think 1:12 is unrealistic, but 1:20 would make more sense. But does anyone think that such a rule wouldn't be got around, with deferred share options, enlarged pensions, golden handshakes etc.? Seems totally unenforceable to me.

well the Eurozone would be better of if we joined

yes i also tend to think that it is very difficult to enforce and would maybe bring a huge pack of other laws later that are needed to close loopholes.

and i think its not a good time to do it, now that we already have troubles with the economy.

 

[MikeG]

well the Eurozone would be better of if we joined .......

....but you've WAAAAAAY too many nasties hidden away in your banks to ever contemplate joining the EU. Just imagine if all the Swiss banks had to show exactly how much money they were holding in the name of Mobutu or Mugabe, Goering or Ghadaffi!

 

[DC]

....but you've WAAAAAAY too many nasties hidden away in your banks to ever contemplate joining the EU. Just imagine if all the Swiss banks had to show exactly how much money they were holding in the name of Mobutu or Mugabe, Goering or Ghadaffi!

i am in favor of that, would be cool. we should remove banking secrecy for foreigners.

on the other hand luxembourg is in the EU, so its possible also for us

 

[Virus]

Why not 1:11?

 

[TriangleMan]

I obviously don't know the details, but it does sound like a law that would be very easy to get around

Exactly. I immediately thought of one way, just have the company's senior management based in Switzerland and outsource the personal assistants, cleaning people etc to temp agencies or other companies. The layering subsidiaries that you mentioned is another way around it.

Another poster mentioned share bonuses and other types of bonuses that could also be used to get around this. Tricky out-of-country compensation schemes could also work (for example pay the CEO in Switzerland 200,000 Francs, whilst depositing another $300,000 from a UK sister company into a UK bank account for him).

If all else fails the company will leave if the cost is too punitive.

While I can see the intention of the initiative I think the people who will be hurt the most are the lower to middle-income Swiss who might be out of a job due to these kinds of restructurings. It is unlikely that this initiative will lead to a company suddenly giving their lowest paid employees huge wage increases.

 

[theprestige]

Somebody, somewhere, is a lot wealthier than I am. This has to stop.

 

[magellan]

Of course nestle threatens to leave.
Wouldn't you?
But lets translate: "If you force us to have higher profits, or higher wages for low level employees (in a country where a supermarket cashier earns 50.000$) we will find another place." <- Good luck with that.

Nestle has 9000 employees in switzerland.
The swiss economy can take 9000 lost jobs.

(When I read 1:12 i thought "What? What important currency is 1:12 against the swiss franc, killing swiss exports?")