The Peoples Republic of France

[Grisu]

Kaeptan, well then, clearly, France is on the right track. Business is booming, and all is well, they should keep doing what theyre doing

I never said that, but your (and other posters here) constaint claiming that france is going down in flames, etc, etc gets rather tiring. if you'd been right all along France would have been empty long ago.....

Unemployment is 20% among the jackasses who were rioting.

what a huge surprise. if you get a demonstration for more pay for teachers, you'll certainly find a disproporionate number of teachers in the mass. so surprise if it's about job security there'll be a big group of unemployeds. but I find it's pretty typcal that you compare the unemployment rate of a specific group in france to that of all the US

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Kaeptan, yes. For years, people have been noting that the economy of France is worsening, and for years, it has been. All previous token attempts by French governments to correct the situation and bring France into the modern world have failed because of cowardly leadership that crumbles in the face of riots and demonstrations.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Others have made similar comments, and it highlights perfectly the illogic of those who oppose attempts to modernize the economic system of France. Business people dont fire workers 'for no reason'. They dont make any business decisions 'for no reason'. You have a childish view of the workplace, one in which workers are fired out of spite, because business people are mean.

Bozo, I don't think buziness people are mean and I also support work laws because:
1. even though the majority aren't, some are; and the law is there to protect the workers from a mean employer;
2. there are some benefits for the worker that become active after a certain period of employment in the same company (additional vacations, a better bonus, etc) . I know some employer who will fire their emplyee and hire new ones just to avoid giving those benefits.
3. some times it is better for the employee to fire and hire: the employee get sick, get pregnent, etc.

You may now say that you still still support less laws. I'm fine by that. But the majority on french people, and not only the one who are protesting, don't want a US like economy, even if it is "economically" better.



My brain isnt trapped in an ideology. I look at results. We dont have 20% unemployment in the US, and I dont think you do in the UK either. Instead of critiquing the economic policies of our countries from an idealogical standpoint, maybe you should be trying to figure out what we're obviously doing right, and encourage the French to do the same.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Hannibal, but youd like to have less unemplyment in France, right? So why would you reject an economic model that employs more people? Youre saying that the French arent interested in a better economic system. Ok thats fine, but then, you realise that you arent arguing from an economic perspective, youre arguing from an idealogical one?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Kaeptan, yes. For years, people have been noting that the economy of France is worsening, and for years, it has been. All previous token attempts by French governments to correct the situation and bring France into the modern world have failed because of cowardly leadership that crumbles in the face of riots and demonstrations.

For us it is not the Modern World, it is the 19th Century world. We don't want our social standards to drop and become those of China, India or Eastern Europe, we want theirs to be leveled to ours. You may say we are dreaming, but we're not the only one . In the 19th century, after Germany's Bismark adopted a revolutionary social protection for that time, employers were screaming saying that Germany and those who will follow its example are doomed and will be left behind because "uncompetitive".

 

[MamboJoel]

For us it is not the Modern World, it is the 19th Century world. We don't want our social standards to drop and become those of China, India or Eastern Europe, we want theirs to be leveled to ours. You may say we are dreaming, but we're not the only one . In the 19th century, after Germany's Bismark adopted a revolutionary social protection for that time, employers were screaming saying that Germany and those who will follow its example are doomed and will be left behind because "uncompetitive".

Since it's required on any subject to consider a point and it's contepart, put yourself in the place of an employer, what would you think about lesser options when employing others, and the one of going outside your country to develop your business ?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Hannibal, but youd like to have less unemplyment in France, right? So why would you reject an economic model that employs more people? Youre saying that the French arent interested in a better economic system. Ok thats fine, but then, you realise that you arent arguing from an economic perspective, youre arguing from an idealogical one?

We would like to have less unemployment sure, but not at all price. If having a lower unemployment rate means more "crappy" jobs, a crappy social security, than hell no, we don't.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We would like to have less unemployment sure, but not at all price. If having a lower unemployment rate means more "crappy" jobs, a crappy social security, than hell no, we don't.

You think all those young people wouldnt be better off with crappy jobs, than they are unemployed, staging protests, and shutting down the transportation system in order to interfere with those French people who actually do have jobs and are participating in the economy?

Of course theyre crappy jobs. What kind of job does a nineteen year old kid with no work experience or skills have the right to expect?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Since it's required on any subject to consider a point and it's contepart, put yourself in the place of an employer, what would you think about lesser options when employing others, and the one of going outside your country to develop your business ?

Creating business is not only about "how much an employee cost?", otherwise Mali or Niger will receive all foreign investment .Actually France, the "declining" France as some are trying to portray it, is still the 3d receiver of foreign investment, just behind the US and the UK. It is very attractive to investers because French people are among the most productive, and part of the reason why French are very productive is the work envirement they have. People work better if they think they are decently paid, if they feel safe because of a strong social security, because they have vacations, etc

 

[Yeeek]

I'm 26, currently in a 6 months work contract, it ends in a few weeks. Its the 3rd contract like that i had the last 2 years.

None of them has been renewed, not because of me or i was doing my job bad. Search elsewhere.

When i'm looking at my parents situation when they had 25, its quite the oposite. They had a kid, married and a house. I still live at my mom's house because i can't afford to rent an appartment. My pay is roughly 1100€, if i want an apartment thats 700€ i am looking that. Can't afford that..

I thought of moving with my friend and share the cost together but that just doesn't sound good to me. I can't start my own life if i don't know where i will work in 6 months or even if i'll have a job. Also I've had the allocations chomage, don't know how to tranlsate this, unemployment revenue? (roughly 400€ per months), inbetween.

Of course i tryed to find a job that would give me hope of a longtime contract, but when you'are told you are unexperienced for this job, how the heck i'm supposed to get experience if they don't give me the chance?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Oh please, report it, be my guest. Then I expect you'll report yourself for your leftist bashing, which is no better. So please, do me a favour and save your lectures for someone who actually cares.

Try to read again what I wrote. I couldn't care less about your very simple, conventional sycophantic opinions, but even for you there are standards for how you present them
If you don't see the difference, then you really are what I dubbed you.
And about lecturing, while it is true that I am old enough to be your father, I am really happy I am not.
But I am afraid you will get plenty enough of lectures, delivered in a much harder way than I could ever give you, if you keep on in the same style.
And since so many people are sooo worried about France, here is a lecture from somebody who is not me, who presents another perspective.

French Labor Law Reform Not Supported By Economic Evidence
By Mark Weisbrot

More than a million people in France have taken to the streets against their conservative government’s attempts to change the country’s labor law. Here in the United States, these strikes and protests are generally seen as another example of France’s inability to come to grips with the reality of “the global economy.”

According to the conventional wisdom here, “Old Europe” is in need of serious economic reform. But will the reforms currently on the European political agenda actually help most Europeans?

One of the recommended reforms is more “labor market flexibility.” This is an economist’s way of saying it should be easier to fire employees and there should be less generous public pensions and unemployment compensation, and lower payroll taxes. Lower wages and benefits attached to employment, as well as a reduced influence of unions also fall into this category.

The French government has proposed to allow employers to fire employees under 26 years of age without having to show cause. To Americans this may seem strange, since employers under U.S. law are generally permitted to fire anyone without having to give a reason. But this is not the case in most other high-income countries, and even in many developing countries.

The government claims that employers will hire more people if it is easier to get rid of them, and that therefore unemployment (especially among younger workers) will be reduced. But the available economic research provides little or no evidence for this argument.*

For example, there is no relationship between the amount of employment protection in different countries and their unemployment rate. This is true generally for measures often portrayed as having a negative impact on employment: for example, unemployment compensation, national collective bargaining, or the percentage of union members. While it is true that France’s unemployment rate is relatively high (9.2 percent), there are a number of countries with high levels of labor market protections and low levels of unemployment: Austria (5.2 percent), Denmark (4.4 percent), Ireland (4.3 percent), the Netherlands (4.6 percent), and Norway (4.5 percent).

This makes sense if we think about it in economic terms. First, it is not as though employers can’t fire people in France or elsewhere in Europe – they just have to show cause. They may prefer the American system, but if there are profitable opportunities for expansion, they will hire more workers. A country’s level of employment (and unemployment) generally has much more to do with the overall demand for the goods and services that its businesses produce, rather than the rules or benefits that affect individual employers.

Why then is Europe’s unemployment currently higher (8.4 percent for the high-income countries of Europe) than that of the United States (4.8 percent)? One possibility is that the European Central Bank (ECB) has kept interest rates higher than it should have in recent years. As the U.S. economy slowed in 2001, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates aggressively (to one percent in 2003) and kept them low for three years into our current economic expansion. The ECB was slower to cut interest rates and has been raising them this year, despite relatively sluggish growth and inflation of only 2.3 percent.

The idea that labor protections are the cause of European unemployment is part of an overall myth that Europeans would benefit from a more American-style economy. The U.S. economy is said to be more competitive, yet we are running a record trade deficit of more than 6 percent of GDP, and the European Union is running a trade surplus. The U.S. economy is supposedly more dynamic, but French productivity is actually higher than ours. Their public pensions, free tuition at universities, longer vacations (4-5 weeks as compared with 2 weeks here), state-sponsored day care, and other benefits are said to be unaffordable in a “global economy.” But since these were affordable in years past, there is no economic logic that would make them less so today, with productivity having grown – no matter what happens in India or China.

French students and workers seem to have a better understanding of these economic issues than their political leaders. Hopefully, the wisdom of the crowd will prevail.

Source:http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2006_03_29.htm

And it would seem like, at least partly, the wisdom of the crowd did indeed prevail...

 

[Uiler]

One thing I read in the Economist is that a large part of the reason why the people are protesting so much is because for the last couple of decades no-one in the political system has had the guts to stand up and say France needs to reform itself. Instead the politicians have been playing a double game. They go up and bash America and globalisation and the free market and blame it for all ills and then secretly try to reform "by stealth" instead of having a full and frank discussion about the reform. This leads to two things:

1. Because all the leaders are constantly bashing globalisation, capitalism and the free market, naturally it leads most French people to think they are bad things.

2. The reformation by stealth means that no-one trusts the government when they try to put forward any reforms now because of the past history of French governments including under Chirac. Which is to put forward some seemingly harmless reform which they assure the people will be small and harmless and then once it goes through when no-one is looking pull the rug from under them before they can react. Which means that the French now react to *any* proposed reform with suspicion because they think, "OK, so what are they hiding? What are their real intentions?" In a vacumn of information and honest discussion naturally people think the worse of the government's intentions.

 

[fishlore]

I'm 26, currently in a 6 months work contract, it ends in a few weeks. Its the 3rd contract like that i had the last 2 years.

None of them has been renewed, not because of me or i was doing my job bad. Search elsewhere.

When i'm looking at my parents situation when they had 25, its quite the oposite. They had a kid, married and a house. I still live at my mom's house because i can't afford to rent an appartment. My pay is roughly 1100€, if i want an apartment thats 700€ i am looking that. Can't afford that..

I thought of moving with my friend and share the cost together but that just doesn't sound good to me. I can't start my own life if i don't know where i will work in 6 months or even if i'll have a job. Also I've had the allocations chomage, don't know how to tranlsate this, unemployment revenue? (roughly 400€ per months), inbetween.

Of course i tryed to find a job that would give me hope of a longtime contract, but when you'are told you are unexperienced for this job, how the heck i'm supposed to get experience if they don't give me the chance?

I'm from the US, I'm 29 and I'm on my fifth different job after graduating from college. My mother and my father still have their first jobs that they got after graduation. The world is changing, deal with it.

I've become a better and harder worker, more efficient, more skilled and more dynamic. I wouldn't trade my past experiences for anything. Do you think it's only in France that new graduates have trouble finding a job because they aren't experienced? The only difference I see is that the French seem to think their entitled to it while people here work for it. I struggled for more than a year to find an entry level garbage job.

How do you get experience if they don't give you a chance? Rioting probably wouldn't be my first choice. Supporting this sense of entitlement and pissing in the face of people trying to help wouldn't be in my plan either.

 

[Winner]

Try to read again what I wrote. I couldn't care less about your very simple, conventional sycophantic opinions, but even for you there are standards for how you present them
If you don't see the difference, then you really are what I dubbed you.
And about lecturing, while it is true that I am old enough to be your father, I am really happy I am not.
But I am afraid you will get plenty enough of lectures, delivered in a much harder way than I could ever give you, if you keep on in the same style.
And since so many people are sooo worried about France, here is a lecture from somebody who is not me, who presents another perspective.

Whatever

You think all those young people wouldnt be better off with crappy jobs, than they are unemployed, staging protests, and shutting down the transportation system in order to interfere with those French people who actually do have jobs and are participating in the economy?

Of course theyre crappy jobs. What kind of job does a nineteen year old kid with no work experience or skills have the right to expect?

They'll realize that, after it becomes unsustainable to feed such masses of unemployed. Social security is extremely expensive thing and you have to have enough people actually working to pay for it.

But there is one major flaw in this leftist approach, which is that this system fails to motivate people (if you read that article I posted you know I am right about the motivation). The larger the extent of social security is, the less motivation people have to work and the higher is the unemployment. Circle is closed. Leftist, anti-liberal policies thus lead to higher unemployment.

In France, this flaw of leftist policies is magnified by the inherent stubborness of the population, which refuses to accept any reforms, which would cost them in the short term, but help in the long term. In fact, the French crowds are not solidary, but very egoistic. They use words like "freedom" and "solidarity", but in fact they intend to milk those who have some initiative and will to improve their lives through work.

EDIT: a picture from another thread, but I think it shows the trend:

 

[MamboJoel]

Creating business is not only about "how much an employee cost?", otherwise Mali or Niger will receive all foreign investment .Actually France, the "declining" France as some are trying to portray it, is still the 3d receiver of foreign investment, just behind the US and the UK. It is very attractive to investers because French people are among the most productive, and part of the reason why French are very productive is the work envirement they have. People work better if they think they are decently paid, if they feel safe because of a strong social security, because they have vacations, etc

You did not answer my question : what would you think if you were the employer ? Allways consider a thing and it's contrepartie, if you don't you'll be just asking yourself why the gov did not propose a lifetime contract with minimum 3000 € wage ? They're so stupid they didn't think about it, everybody would've accepted it
Same logical problem appears when comparating wages to Mali to say that the it shows more security ensures more productivity for the employer, a win win situation. It's forgeting the fact that Mali hasn't had the same economic and industrial construction the country we are talking about has had, and avoiding the "contrepartie" of a wage : the production itself. For an equivalent result you'll work with the 90% cheaper Mali worker that you can fire anytime if you lose your main client.

 

[mdwh]

They are not ! They support freedom, and thus the one of market.

I'm not sure what you're saying? There are certainly plenty of aspects of the US which are not at all in the spirit of the free market.

 

[mdwh]

Others have made similar comments, and it highlights perfectly the illogic of those who oppose attempts to modernize the economic system of France. Business people dont fire workers 'for no reason'. They dont make any business decisions 'for no reason'. You have a childish view of the workplace, one in which workers are fired out of spite, because business people are mean.

What? You are saying that prejudice and discrimination doesn't exist?

Anyhow, this is beside the point. If employers have no desire to fire for no reason, then the US is the same as the UK. The question is, is France the same as the UK with respect to employment rights, or is it actually impossible to make someone redundant at all?

I think that employers should have the right to make someone redundant, but that it shouldn't go as far as being able to fire someone for no reason.

If you say that employers never fire anyone for no reason, then why do you wish them to have the right to do so?

My brain isnt trapped in an ideology. I look at results. We dont have 20% unemployment in the US, and I dont think you do in the UK either.

Exactly, and we in the UK have decent employee laws, and not these "fire for no reason" laws.

Instead of critiquing the economic policies of our countries from an idealogical standpoint, maybe you should be trying to figure out what we're obviously doing right, and encourage the French to do the same.

Clearly, the difference isn't to do with employers being able to fire for no reason, since they can't do that in the UK.

 

[mdwh]

Hannibal, but youd like to have less unemplyment in France, right? So why would you reject an economic model that employs more people?

I'm still curious - how does this model reduce unemployment?

Youre saying that the French arent interested in a better economic system.

Well, I can't speak for the French, but I argue that poorer job security and allowing employers to fire for no reason are not good from an economic point of view.

I think capitalism is a great thing, but a laissez-faire market isn't always best.

 

[kronic]

Correction: laissez-faire is never the best.

 

[JerichoHill]

The development of the free market has lifted more people out of poverty than any technology, any government, or any program.

The evidence is everywhere. From each former Iron Curtain country's turn to a freer market after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the current changing business climate in China where private property rights finally exist. A free market brings with it opportunities, and solidifies a middle class which balances the interests of the poor and the rich.

In America, a family of four could be considered low income if the household income is say $35,000 in a generic American city. However, this family will enjoy a car, an apartment with a/c, no pests, and running water / electricity 24/7, and quite possibly have cable tv, internet. That is America's poor. For most of the world, that is middle-class or better.

France's insistence, and the insistence of their supporters, that their economic system is viable stands starkly contrasted with such freer market models. As I have stated repeatedly, France's policies has created a hysterisis effect, and seemingly created a permanent class of unemployed. That cannot be good for the economy.

If you want a brief overview on hysterisis, here's a link to a paper I found using google thats easy enough to understand

http://www.kent.ac.uk/economics/papers/papers-pdf/2000/0006.pdf

I have absolutely no problem with France or the French wanting a different system. But when that system has a fatal flaw that has been clearly demonstrated in the economic literature (JEL, JEH, AEJ, Economist) over the past few years, one has to stop and think about it.