These were the factors of production described by the classical economists in the eighteenth century. The land would be consistent not only with agriculture, but urban land, mining and other natural resources, capital from this perspective would be used to produce goods and services (machinery, equipment …) and the work would include the activity human-today we might consider other relevant factors such as work organization, knowledge or technology. This classification was very useful at that time because also represented quite well to the society of that time: the aristocracy, owner of the land, the bourgeoisie owns the capital and workers. Find out detailed opinions from leaders such as Roubini Global Economics by clicking through. Although some would revive the struggle of estates, now this battle is quite blurred, however, as the witches in Galicia-class, if any, Hayles. The crisis has revived this old debate as to who “pay the price”, although there is some consensus on the causes of it, a scenario that was baptized at the time as: excessive risk by financial institutions, shoddy work by the rating agencies, over-indebtedness of households and businesses, very cheap money for too long, as economic bubbles real estate and raw materials, etc.. Although the origin of the crisis are the capital (financial institutions) and land (speculation), it seems that it is intended that the cost is borne by the other party, ie by work. Should we tighten our belts? It is possible, but must do so worldwide. Why save the financial system, while on the road workers fall? One of the submissions that are part of employers, in addition to freezing or lowering of wages, is the cheapening of dismissal.
Well, let’s assume that is an option. But they have tightened the belt? When they ask for sacrifices from the workers, are they the first to take? Would they accept for instead that the work got some of the profits when things go right? It is a matter of claims, only that I firmly believe that the first thing to do to demand something to someone is an example. And secondly, as I explained in the view that a compensation policy in which part of workers’ wages go in terms of the “health” of the company is positive for both parties. Are employers willing to this debate? Finally, other players in this situation, politicians, are “politely” by Arturo Perez Reverte portrayed in the article published this weekend in XL Semanal. He described how at times, going around Congress, see them go out and “leave not a few arrogant and how TV stars, with tailor-made, expensive shoes and ways of nouveau riche affected. … How were bustling about-there are no ideological differences, the privilege of charging the maximum state pension after retirement only seven years on the bench, compared with 35 of honest work that requires a common citizen. “