 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the UMP (the party of Nicolas Sarkozy, a bit of a maverick, he was the minister of edcuation, i think now hes foreign minister??) voted for the increase in maximum working hours, as did the UDF. |
The UMP is Chirac's party, but the President never leads his party himself over here. Sarkozy is an ambitious shark, poised to replace Chirac. Recently he was a wildly popular police minister, and an accepted finance minister (3rd most prominent function in France). He has given up his ministries to become the leader of the UMP, in order to turn this Chirac machine into a Sarkozy machine.
Both the UMP and the UDF are right wing parties, the UDF being less so. Both seem convinced that the statements of the very active employer-syndicate are economic truth, and they do everything they can to please the syndicate.
quote: the PS and the PCF voted against. |
No surprise here. The PS introduced the 35 hours workweek, and the PCF's only critics to the 35 hours workweek is that it was bundled with flexibility measures (see one of my posts above).
quote: Frankly, I dont think unemployment goes very far from 10%. i think France needs to suspend, decrease, or change the amount of money they give to unemployed people. |
This is not the problem. There hasn't been any serious study linking our unemployment rate to welfare. Some people abuse welfare, of course, but it is not known how many there are. In all cases, the mantra of all French right-wingers (that the unamployed are lazy bums who feed off welfare) has never been proven. It may reduce unemployment to force people to take any job (that's what the Germans are trying, forcing people to become prostitutes), but it may not as well: as the pressure rises on currently employed people, because of unemployment scare, and if the employer is free to have them work 15% extra time (up to 220 overtime hours a year are allowed now), it's absolutely not sure that there will be room for the now-motivated unemployed on the job market.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
This is not the problem. There hasn't been any serious study linking our unemployment rate to welfare. Some people abuse welfare, of course, but it is not known how many there are. In all cases, the mantra of all French right-wingers (that the unamployed are lazy bums who feed off welfare) has never been proven. It may reduce unemployment to force people to take any job (that's what the Germans are trying, forcing people to become prostitutes), but it may not as well: as the pressure rises on currently employed people, because of unemployment scare, and if the employer is free to have them work 15% extra time (up to 220 overtime hours a year are allowed now), it's absolutely not sure that there will be room for the now-motivated unemployed on the job market.
|
cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates.
the phillips curve model even shows how increased welfare means increased unemployment at equal rates of inflation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:26
|
|
Oerdin: The bright capitalists figured out that it made a lot of sense to run their factories on three 8-hour shifts rather than two 12-hour shifts. It's true that the unions had a lot of impact on this realization, but once you do just slightly less than 12-hour shifts, the 8-hour shift becomes much more attractive than a 10-hour shift, for instance. By 1938, the 40-hour work week was in place, well before the crazy socialist system we have now was instituted.
Last edited by DanS on 17-02-2005 at 04:53
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates. |
Because the rates are counted differently. We have the same rate of unemployment as Europe, when you add in people who've lost their benefits, never had jobs, are in prison, or can't find enough work to meet their needs. For example, I'm not counted as unemployed in the U.S., though I don't have a job. My benefits ended two months ago, so I'm no longer unemployed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
cmon. high unemployment benefits has to be the reason. there is no other reason why nearly every western european country has unemployment reaching or about 10%, while america, who has limited unemployment benefits, has unemployment at half the euro rates. |
There are plenty of reasons. Unlike most West European countries, you guys have a low-wage sector. You allow yourself to have workers paid like dirt (the phenomenon of the working poor, which sounds absolutely shocking to European ears), and as such, plenty of jobs can be held, which wouldn't exist if there were decent wages. The fact that you allow this kind of indignant jobs for one, and the fact that you force people taking them increases employment (because they are confronted with the choice of taking these jobs or not feeding their families). That's absolutely not quality employment though.
The US has also much more productivity (with fire at will laws, for example), and the employment rate benefits from it, because employers can hire and fire very reactively... Hiring somebody for an undetermined time, in France, is much more of a commitment. This may result in a better rate, but it also results in a lower quality of life, where your livelihood is very dependant on little bosses.
quote: the phillips curve model even shows how increased welfare means increased unemployment at equal rates of inflation. |
Maybe that's my sociology background speaking, but I don't care about this kind of models. Basically, it confronts one developed country (the US) that stands out on plenty of aspects in comparison with other developed countries, and it blames one of these aspects for all the findings.
Until I find a study that actually inquires on how people behave (rather than using abstract rationalist theoretical models or confronting macrolevel data), I will have no reason to believe that the impact of unemployment benefits on job-motivation is significant. Considering that argument is the one I repeatedly hear from all free-marketeer politicians (who are in power now in Europe), who don't back it by any actual study of human behaviour, I conclude it is tripe.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:26
|
|
The progression as I know it was six 12-hour shifts to six 10-hour shifts to six 8-hour shifts to five 8-hour shifts. All before 1940.
quote: And what crazy socialist system do we have? |
The one in the US nowadays. The proportion of government spending in relation to the economy has almost tripled since the institution of the 40 hour work week. We're all spending more time working for the government.
I find it fascinating that we have the same basic labor setup nowadays versus 70 years ago. In context, the French fight for a 35 hour work week is small potatoes.
Last edited by DanS on 17-02-2005 at 05:04
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: There are plenty of reasons. Unlike most West European countries, you guys have a low-wage sector. You allow yourself to have workers paid like dirt (the phenomenon of the working poor, which sounds absolutely shocking to European ears), and as such, plenty of jobs can be held, which wouldn't exist if there were decent wages. The fact that you allow this kind of indignant jobs for one, and the fact that you force people taking them increases employment (because they are confronted with the choice of taking these jobs or not feeding their families). That's absolutely not quality employment though. |
the only effect low wage workers have on the economy is a decrease in costs and prices. having on high wage workers would push prices up, but wouldnt necessairly result in unemployment. only when they can make more by not working then if they had worked, do high educated people choose not to be busdrivers. these high educated workers just need to take pay cuts. but they dont want to because they get paid by the state not to work.
(and do you have low wage workers, youve got the north africans, who all live in Rueil Malmaison, the 10th Arrondissement, or Seine St. Denis)
quote:
Maybe that's my sociology background speaking, but I don't care about this kind of models. Basically, it confronts one developed country (the US) that stands out on plenty of aspects in comparison with other developed countries, and it blames one of these aspects for all the findings. |
actually, the phillips curve is the best fit line of the (x,y) coordinates (x=unemployment, y=inflation) of a large sample of countries, including most of europe, parts of asia and oceania, and parts of the americas.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|