The fact checkers tell Reimann that the 1.35 billion francs saved will not be used entirely for consumption, but will be saved in part: "The savings rate of Swiss households is around 20 percent, which would free up around 1.09 billion francs." How much of this "would actually flow into additional jobs" is "difficult to estimate," since the share of personnel costs in turnover in the economy as a whole is at most forty percent. "This means that new jobs would be created for a maximum of 436 million australia rcs data francs." Especially since a job in Switzerland costs an average of 113,000 francs, this would result in a maximum of 3,860 jobs, which is "significantly less than the 4,946 full-time jobs that would be lost directly at SRG if the No-Billag initiative were to be accepted." Reimann is given a 50 percent truth content.
The effects postulated by Reimann are therefore downplayed using vulgar economics: 1.358 billion in license fee money x 0.8 because of the savings rate x 0.4 because of the "company's personnel expenditure ratio" (where are the 400 million in advertising revenue in this calculation?!). To expose this magical number, it is enough to look at the SRG's personnel expenditure ratio. In 2016, it took in 1.64 billion francs (of which 1.27 billion francs came from license fees). Personnel expenditure amounted to 0.67 billion francs. Look at that: that's forty percent.