French workers fight for the right to be lazy

[pchang]

There are plenty of examples where critical labor needs are left unmet. France is one country where a lot of people go on vacation at the same time. A couple of years ago, this occurred during a big heat wave. There were not enough medical personnel to check up on old people left alone and a fair number died of heat stroke.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
There are plenty of examples where critical labor needs are left unmet. France is one country where a lot of people go on vacation at the same time. A couple of years ago, this occurred during a big heat wave. There were not enough medical personnel to check up on old people left alone and a fair number died of heat stroke.

Ouch

I know in Mrs Flubber's unit they only let so many people take vacation at a time since the patients will keep coming regardless. When they need to get extra staff they have a policy where they have to offer voluntary overtime to everyone before they can REQUIRE someone to come to work. The reality is that there is usually someone who wants the shift at double pay.

[pchang]

Well, the old people were alone in their homes, not at a hospital. In any case, it appears that it is standard in France for medical types to check in on old people from time to time (but not during vacation time). It was just bad luck that the heat wave and vacation time coincided (though since the vacation time is in August, maybe it wasn't bad luck so much as it was inevitability).

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
What's the working age in the EU? While this might not prove a significant difference with regard to some EU countries, I expect it might prove so with France.

Working age population is that aged 15-64 for all the calculations I made above - it would make no sense to use a different denominator for different countries now would it?
The specific figures for France are employment 61.1%, workforce 67.7% (up from 57.5% and 65.4% ten years ago)

The EU15 figures are employment 66.1% (up from 60.1% ten years ago) and workforce 71.9% (up from 67.2% 10 years ago)

For the US employment was 67.0% (up from 65.7%) and the workforce was 70.9% (up from 70.0%)


Figures differ slightly from previous post due to updated info and rounding errors.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


hmm and this has what to do with anything you or I said in the previous two posts.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

so that settles it - the 35 hr workweek is more productive in france than a 40 hr. in america. now lets look at annual hours worked per employee (from the same site)

here is LP-Hour EKS

1st, Norway 132%
2nd, Luxembourg 125%
3rd, France 120%
4th Belgium 114%
5th, Netherlands 109%
6th, Ireland 106%
7th, Austria 102%
8th, Germany 102%
9th, United States 100%
10th, Denmark 98%
11th, Italy 96%
12th, Finland 92%
13th, Switzerland 91%
14th, United Kingdom 90%
15th, Sweden 89%
16th, Australia 83%
17th, Canada 83%
18th, Spain 77%
19th, Japan 75%
20th, Iceland 72%
21st, New Zealand 65%
22nd, Greece 65%
23rd, Portugal 54%
24th, Hungary 52%
25th, Czech Republic 42%
26th, Mexico 39%
27th, Slovakia 39%
28th, Poland 38%
29th, South Korea 31%
30th, Turkey 26%

here is annual hours worked per employee index to USA (USA=100)

1. Greece/Turkey 107%
3. Iceland/ USA 100%
5. Spain 99%
6. Australia/Canada/ Japan 97%
9. New Zealand 96%
10. Portugal 93%
11. Ireland/ UK 89%
13. Italy 88%
14. Finland 87%
15. Belgium/Luxembourg/Sweden/Austria 86%
19. Switzerland 83%
20. Denmark 81%
21. Germany 80%
22. France 77%
23. Netherlands/Norway 74%

[Lawrence of Arabia]

heres a crappy graph. does anyone have a better graph program? also, can someone figure out how to put the best fit line to it? The x and y axis are indexed to USA=100

[Ted Striker]

Can you give a caption for what the abbreviation "LP-Hour EKS" means?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

so what can we see? in general, the trend is that the less hours worked, the more productive each hour is. turks, who work in general 7% more than an american, are also 75% less productive in their time. Greece, who also leads the way in hours worked, is 35% less productive than america per hour worked. Norway is the most productive country per hour worked, even though in general, norwegians work 25% less than americans.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

sure. LP-Hour EKS means

Labor productivity per hour worked at 2002 US dollars PPP. The EKS method is a method of calculating PPP, and is a more accurate way than the Geary Khamis approach (GK). For example, the GK understates the world poverty levels by about a 1/3.

[Ted Striker]

Okay thanks.

It seems the law of diminishing returns holds here.

Anyone want to guess at where the equillibrium is?

I'm gonna say 32.5 hours per week.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i think that looking at annual work rather than weekly work is better because weekly work doesnt include the vacation time. the more vacation you take, the more productive you will be during the time that you are working.

looking at the graph, it seems that america is a bad country to compare to because it seems to be off the best fit line by a bunch. it is way more productivce per hour worked than comparable OECD countries at around the same annual hours per year (Japan, iceland, spain) for whatever reason (hard working immigrants, welfare?, etc.)

[Jaguar]

We rule.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

lets take france for example. France works 400 hours less than America per year (1400 to 1800) which is 20%. France also is 20% more productive. the net gain (20 - 20) is zero, which means that by going to the 35 hour week, france has lost nothing relative to america. they accomplish the same amount of labor productivity in 20% of the time. (note: even though america is off the best fit line and is a bad country to take, it still pays for france to go to the 35 hr week.)

the conclusion is that the french person not only works less, but gets the same amount done as the american, who works more. i dont think theres anyway to dispute that going to a 35 hr week for france, and for many countries, is a bad idea

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's completely inaccurate. Read Candide by Voltaire. There is no natural order to society. Social order is created by people who have the power to do so.

OK kid of the

How do your statements in sentences 3 and 4 relate? I find them self evident. Obviously social order is created by the people with the power to do so. It would kinda be ineffective if attempted by the people without the power doncha think?

Now where we would probably disagree is on the question as to who has the power. I am sure you would say that it is the folks with money and I would often agree that that is true. But the rich no longer rule by decree and I think you have to acknowledge the power of the masses ( the electorate). Rich folks do not have it all their way (although it may seem so in a Bush government )-- Look at other democratic countries with stronger social programs and more progressive taxation and tell me that those were imposed by the rich-- Nope they are evidence that lots of folks can have power in a democracy