|
|
One of the main problems in Europe is unemployement. Even though it affects many, the governments don't care about it and even lie to us in their statistics (showing us a smaller percentages of unemployement than what it really is) since an unemployed person to be considered as such must fulfill these points; They :
are without work
are available to start work within the next two weeks
and have actively sought employment at some time during the previous four weeks.
This of course doesn't include a great deal of unemployed workers. They try to ignore one of the main social problems of their societies, which gives rise to racism. Anyways, around the time this article was written, the average unemployement in the European Community was of 7.6%. In countries like France though, this figure goes higher. Also this number is what I call "cyclical" because it tends to go down for a period and then goes back up. Every time it goes down, the state claims that they are doing a good job but when it goes to reach the mont Everest..."it is the fault of the previous government". TYPICAL!!!
Such an unstable and high level of unemployement gave way to some leaders to influence the population negatively. First they talk to the poorest and pretend to be their allies, those who suffer with them. Their debate, then, starts turning into a racist offence. Now they say that the foreigners are to blame. "They are taking our jobs, eating our food..." But they seem to hide the following facts (this page will proove that they are lying when they use unemployement to influence people for their selfish goals):
Unemployement is due to capitalism
Capitalism is just about profit. Private companies and many state owned ones too, struggle competing against each other to obtain profit. The more profit the better the owners live.And the workers? They don't live better. In economy, the word "working force"lost its human meaning to become just another "production factor" like the capital (factories, money, tools...)and the natural resources (chemicals, land, water...).
As soon as a company starts loosing profits it won't rise the prices of its product otherwise less people would buy it and it would end up with even less profit. So what do they do when their benefits go down turning red and "reder"? Well they fire workers and make the rest work twice as hard. They employed will work harder so they wouldn't experience the fate of their unfortunated camarades that lost their source of income.
In a system where businesses compete against each other, there will always be winners and loosers. The loosing ones will have to close down and of course fire all the workers. Plus in a situation of free trade (like in the EU and the "free" trade area of the Americas), big multinationals will come in a national market and destroy local companies, therefore making the national workers poorer and the big multinationals'owners richer. How do I know this for sure?
Well many factors help multinational companies win over small national ones. One of them is that since they are big they have a huge budget and can afford to reduce their prices so to compete against the local competitors untill they have to close their doors. Conmpanies like Shell, Nike, GAP can earn less money for a while (when their prices are low) and then rise them back up when competition is being erased and they have a monopoly in a national market.
This situation is especially true when rich multinational conquer the third world's markets. But it also applies to rich countries. Ever wonder why there is always less and less small private businesses? Because they are being wiped out by big capitalists. It is always harder and harder to start one's own business. And even harder to keep them running.
So far we have analyzed the situation in which a company is loosing profit and fires workers. Now let's see if companies keep the workers when their benefits are positive, and even, when they are climbing up to records.
Just to proove that in good period, a capitalist will always fire workers as soon as s/he has an opportunity to raise her/his benefits, I will present here some example that occured in France.
Foreign workers are needed.
First world's societies are growing old. It is a typical phenomenon of rich countries. People have less time, apart from other factors, to raise a family so they have less children and the life expenctancy increases. This means that in the future there will be less workers producing wealth and more third age people that will be getting their money for their retiring pensions. So the social expences will increase and the incomes will decrease. This is a dangerous situation because the ever reducing working force will have to pay an ever higher tax to pay the well deserved retiring pensions.
Because of this, the rich countries need workers (to increase their work force) and since they can't find enough in their nations, they want to accept from poor countries. But keep in mind that the number of immigrants allowed is very low. Laws are very stricked and that leads to millions of foreigners to try to make it illegally. The number of foreign workers needed changes from nation to nation but it is pretty high. Nonetheless very few, way less than what is needed, are accepted in. This is another clear example of how leaders see workers as mere resources that can produce wealth instead of seeing them as human beings.
Foreign workers take specific jobs
Thirdly, strangers don't take nationals'jobs since they mostly take those that noone else wants, for example cleaning shops, working in factories, dishwashers...Those jobs, the ones on the bottom of the hierarchy of exploitation, are mainly fulfilled by foreigners and they represent an essential part in the production of the national wealth. Thus, to think that they take most of the available jobs is completely stupid.
The main reason a stranger can get permit to live in a country is that either s/he is a political prisoner or s/he has a good degree. The latter situation allows some foreigners (those who had a good education) to get high ranked jobs but this is not depriving the locals of work. This isn't the worker's fault, it is because many nationals did not have the chance of studying a good career and then get the job desired. So instead of wrongly accusing the immigrants we should accuse the government.
Lastly, those foreign workers who left their countries (countries that are the ones suffering from emmigration since they lost qualified people) end up helping the country they live in. That is why they are welcomed warmly in the first world.
So after seeing that foreign workers are needed, that they don't take nationals's job and that qualified ones come to work and contribute to the local economy...we can ask the following question:who is loosing from immigration? The first world? or the third world? AND Are immigrants, parasites in rich societies? Or a useful and overly exploited part of it?
|
