It is one of the memes of our age that regulation is a cause of unemployment and an inhibitor to growth. Is there any truth to this, and what motivations are at play on either side of the argument?

In the United States there has long been a strand of political opinion that holds that all regulation as applied to business is harmful. Bills which introduce regulation of any kind, whether it be environmental, fiscal or to do with employee rights are branded as ‘job killers’.

There are states in the US where employees have significantly fewer rights than others. These states are branded as being ‘Right to Work’ states. The implication being that the absence of burdensome regulation means that it is that much easier for enterprise to expand, generating jobs that otherwise would have not appeared.

It has been claimed by certain commentators that in terms of hard evidence the case for saying that regulations should be stripped back for the benefit of the economy and therefore society is on the thin side. If, the opponents of the ‘regulations cost jobs’ viewpoint hold, if enterprises are in a position where  they would like to hire but are unwilling to because of regulations, there would be a great demand for increased hours among existing staff, however, so this strand of argument goes, this is not being seen.

Another empirical sign that regulation was stifling job growth would be that the kinds of industries where employment tends to be long term would be more reluctant to hire because of regulations that have yet to take effect. This has not been seen, and neither have other key indicators, according to the analysis of  Al Jazeera’s Dean Baker.

Over on this side of the pond the opinion that what is keeping levels of unemployment at their current unacceptably high levels is the existence of employment law, both home-grown  and of the imported European variety. The BBC recently revealed that a government report had been leaked which was calling for the abolition of the right of workers to sue for unfair dismissal.

At present if somebody is dismissed from their employment then they have up to twelve months in which to launch a claim for compensation over such employment disputes. The problem with this is that it is seen by some as promoting a culture where it is difficult to remove unproductive employees.

The other side of the coin is that there are benefits from job security, both to the economy and society. If a worker feels that they can be sacked arbitrarily at any point without compensation then it is hard for them to have the confidence to, for instance, commit to a mortgage, or to spend their some of their disposable income on the high street rather than save it.

Ultimately, turkeys will never vote for Christmas. There will always be calls from certain business leaders to do away with employee rights or other because it would be good for the bottom line. Whether these calls should be heeded however must be something that is given proper thought and considered in the round.

It can be easy to forget about savings accounts, however this can be a costly mistake as terms and conditions change.

Choosing the right savings account for you takes time and energy. An lot of what is, for most people, pretty dull research has to be done. Small print must be trawled though, arcane terminology unpicked and risks and benefits put into the balance. Once that is done though, and the direct debits are set up, that very much seems like that.

It is of course comforting to know that without you having to do anything further the nest egg that you are building for a rainy day will continue to grow month on month. The problem is that not all savings products are ‘fire and forget’ with many of you requiring that you keep a beady eye on them.

Often the rates offered by savings accounts are only set for a fixed period. After this time the account holders can find themselves earning dramatically less interest on the money that they have put away. It is all too easy to let a once attractive savings account morph itself into a real donkey.

The investment environment at the moment is tricky at best. Many of the investments that have proved successful in the past are no longer yielding returns. In this context pensions have to be seen as one of the better bets, however everything in the garden is far from rosy.

While there have undoubtedly been some scandals involving mismanagement and fraud in regards to pension funds, the biggest threat to most is more subtle and insidious. Hidden charges and over-inflated fees are chipping away at peoples retirement nest eggs.

Consumers in Britain are hit with very high fees for setting up and administrating pensions. Those in the USA and in fact most other European countries are typically charged much less for this. In addition to the level of fees being high, they are often structured in an overly complicated fashion. The National Association of Pension funds has gone as far as to slam these as being “eye wateringly complex”.

Incredibly some investors have found that anything up to three quarters of there retirement income has been syphoned off through fees and charges. It is those who joined schemes in the nineties that are most likely to be paying over the odds. The charges that are typically levied have fallen dramatically from their hight.

If you find that you are in a pension scheme with unacceptably high charges it may be possible to switch. There are a number of circumstances however where it is more advisable to stick with what you already have rather than changing things up. Some pensions that were sold in the past have the kind of guaranteed returns that are no longer common.

Knowing whether to ‘stick or twist’ with a pension is not an easy call. There are no one-size-fits all answers as there are many, many factors to take into consideration. Paying the premium for high quality financial planning could well be worth it. Not all the information that the best advisors are privilege to is widely available.